Finally we get a chance to spice up things in this thread, again!
Doesn't fit with what the Civic is supposed to be. Right?
Elaborate. If it is about fuel economy and emissions, Honda has a 155 HP K20B available that fits the requirements of civic-sense.
I wouldn't mind a car with 900 cc engine, but it will have to be small and light to complement the engine's output. Heck, I would love to own a Honda S800 today, if I can find one (800 cc engine).
I sure hope that Honda will put that engine (or something similar) into the next generation Civic. It's kind of disappointing that the Civic hasn't improved much (performance wise) in the last 12 years.
I was being a smart-[non-permissible content removed].
Remember when I criticized the Civic for not offering something bigger than a 1.7L and all the Honda freaks jumped on my back because the "Civic doesn't need a bigger engine" and "That's not what the Civic is all about" and "The Civic is about economy" and "The Civic is the best car in the world and the Mazda3 sucks and is just a piece of crap Ford" bla bla bla...remember that?
"If it is about fuel economy and emissions, Honda has a 155 HP K20B available that fits the requirements of civic-sense."
Couldn't Honda update the 1.7L to get even better mileage than it does now and much better than the K20B? Sure they could. The Civic doesn't "need" a K20B.
"I said that a while ago and got blasted, because the Civic isn't about performance."
Oh, I see! I should probably put my "flame suit" on before the blasting begins! ;-) But come to think of it, most the "souped up" little cars we see on the street are Civics or other Honda/Acura cars.
But seriously, I understand the basic "mission" of the Civic. We just ditched a 2001 EX because we couldn't stand it anymore. It's not a "Bad" car, but more evolutionary changes throughout the years wouldn't hurt either. The Accord isn't "performance-oriented" either, but Honda upped the power to 240 for the 2003 V6 models. And last time I checked, no one complained that the V6 Accord had too much power.
Before I get bashed, I'd like to say that I admire Honda's engineering capabilities. That's exactly why I feel they should have done more to improve one of their bread-and-butter cars. I guess we'll see how the next generation turns out.
Remember when I criticized the Civic for not offering something bigger than a 1.7L and all the Honda freaks jumped on my back
Perhaps a perspective from the past might help re-ignite the subject, by bringing back the memories. I believe this was my first post (#2180) along the lines...
"Honda needs to redefine the Civic lineup and provide for a choice of engines. DX and LX could continue to appeal to the people with civic-sense. Perhaps a new generation of K-series motor with 1.7-1.8-liter displacement could do it. EX could use the K20A with 150-160 HP for people who want more power. And then, take the LX, add sport suspension/alloy wheels, K20A with 170-200 HP and call it “Si”."
Couldn't Honda update the 1.7L to get even better mileage than it does now and much better than the K20B? Sure they could. The Civic doesn't "need" a K20B.
Civic certainly doesn't "need" K20 (A or , but to satisfy people who "want" more power, K20 holds the key. You were suggesting K24 as a better choice.
Going from 1996-2000 to 2001-present Civic, D17 brought an additional 78 cc displacement (1590 cc to 1668 cc). A little improvement in low end power, and the fuel economy went up a little.
D17 will be eventually have to be replaced. Honda has mentioned use i-DSI technology for 1.2-1.5-liter displacement engines (Civic Hybrid, and Euro Honda Jazz use 1.3/i-DSI). And above it, i-VTEC.
As for K20B, it is more fuel efficient and cleaner than the K20A. It is Honda's DI engine, and can run as lean as 65:1.
Based on the existing 2.4L and 2.0L available in the Accord and Civic Si in the US, the 2.4L does seem like a better choice. They're both based on the same engine architecture, so there really isn't a size or weight advantage for the 2.0L, and the heavier Accord performs just as well if not better than the Si acclereration-wise, all the while returning better fuel economy with a bigger engine and more torque. But we've already been through this before.
"As for K20B, it is more fuel efficient and cleaner than the K20A."
Seems like Honda missed the boat with the Civic Si then, huh? Wonder why they didn't use the cleaner and more efficient engine for the US Civic Si? That seems very un-Honda like to choose the dirtier, and less efficient engine. Surely there must have been a reason.
75 is around 4000 rpm. I'm sure with more economical gearing, the 2.0 could get much better mileage.
The biggest reason not to put a 2.4L engine in the Civic is where would they go from there? I mean you can't have a V6 economy car and 2.5L is about as large as you want to go with a 4. All the brands putting large 4 cylinder engines in their eco cars are running into a wall IMHO. It's a desperate move to attract buyers and shows a lack of engineering prowess.
Honda should stick with status quo and go with a 1.8L tuned for the model.
I don't think the big engine has helped them much. A year or two ago the Sentra was actually dead last in the JDP APEAL study, the car owner's liked the least.
throwing in a 2.4 4-cyl for the Civic awhile back, as an option, because, well, the Sentra does it, and Honda has it available. So it would be a quick and easy thing for them to do.
And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a V-6 economy car. You used to be able to get a V-6 in the Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz, and Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance. Now granted, back in those days, these types of cars competed more with the Accord and Camry than they did cars like the Civic or Corolla.
"The biggest reason not to put a 2.4L engine in the Civic is where would they go from there?"
That makes sense? That's the argument against a 2.4L in the Civic? That's a really strong argument.
I guess you could say the same thing about the 170 hp V6 Accord, when the older Accords had 110 hp 4 cyls. What's going on with their engineering when they need a HUGE 2.7L instead of the 2.0L that was working just fine? The Legend used to have a 2.7L, now the RL is coming with a 3.5L. What does that say about Honda engineering? Was it a "desperate move to attract buyers and shows a lack of engineering prowess."?
When the 170 hp V6 came out in the Accord, where could Honda possibly go from there? Well, lets see. They went to 200 hp. Where could Honda possibly go from 200 hp? I dunno, maybe 240 hp. Oh wait, they already did that. What's next 260 hp? This is getting crazy, WAY outta line with the Honda "status quo".
"Honda should stick with status quo and go with a 1.8L tuned for the model."
If Honda sticked with the "status quo", the Accord would still have a 1.8L.
A 1.8L will suffice. They have already proven they can get 160 hp out of 1.6.
Honda has proven they can get 300hp out of 3.0l in a Car and Driver a few years back. It was in a Accord Coupe that they were doing engine development work on.
And the first 2.7L V6 in the Accord was a stopgap before the 3.0 in the following generation. That Accord had to be modified to accept even THAT small V6.
The Civic has gained 100cc with each generation since the beginning. A 1.8 would be following "status quo" with the Civic.
The Accord 4 cylinder has gained 100-200cc. I'm curious if there will be a 2.5. That would be a large 4. As far as the 240 hp V6. It IS keeping with Honda philosophy. They increased power AND fuel economy. How cool is that?
it comes standard with a 126 hp 1.8 4-cyl, which is what goes into the vast majority of the Sentras sold.
The car that really upped the ante in this field was the Dodge/Plymouth Neon, which way back in 1994 (as an early '95 model), came with 132 hp standard, right from the beginning. Unfortunately now, a decade later, they STILL come standard with 132 hp!
Back in '94-95 though, most small cars were still jerking you around with maybe 90-115 hp (although the '95 Cavalier jerked you around with 120)
about as big as an inline-4 can comfortably go? Considering that there have been V-6'es as small as 2.5 liters (and smaller), seems to me that you'd reach a point with 4-cyl's that you're just better off with a small V-6.
Good one. Yet the RL has not always been the RL. Remember the Legend?
"And the first 2.7L V6 in the Accord was a stopgap before the 3.0 in the following generation. That Accord had to be modified to accept even THAT small V6."
What was the point then? Why did they even bother with the V6? Could it be because all of the competitors offered one? Just maybe?
"As far as the 240 hp V6. It IS keeping with Honda philosophy. They increased power AND fuel economy. How cool is that?"
They could have made it with less hp and even better fuel economy. But they didn't. I wonder if that had anything to do with the 240 hp Altima?
in a Sentra once, and thought it was pretty cramped, too. But then IMO, most cars in this class are! Two exceptions I've noticed are the Toyota Corolla and Dodge Neon. Both of 'em have a seating position that gives me just the legroom I need.
Back when I took driver's ed, we used Cutlass Cieras.
Prior to the Accord's redesign, folks were clamoring that Honda would have to use the 3.2L block from the TL. Then prior to the TL's release, the same crowds were calling for a 3.5L block. Honda ignored those notions and produced the cars we have now. Given their success, I don't really think you can fault Honda for it.
Keep it light and a 1.7 or 1.8 will do fine in the Civic. Honda will advance displacement when it's needed, but they have a big bag of tricks to work through before that becomes necessary.
Scion tC and Mazda3 have 2.4 and 2.3 liter engines respectively for 155-160 HP, and they are rated 23/30 mpg and 24/29 mpg respectively. A civic-sense would be to go for a 55-160 HP but try to achieve 30 mpg in city (not on highway). That’s how K20B could help.
And newcar31, if you suggest K24A over K20A, why stop with 160 HP and not go on to 200-210 HP? As for Civic Si, I have always believed that Honda should have used the K20A and gearing from RSX. The Si isn’t geared well for 0-60 run since it requires an additional shift, and too bad, most people use that to measure an engine. Heck, Honda should have gone with 190-210 HP version of the K20A in Civic Si. Perhaps, they will, the next time around.
K20B is essentially K20A modified to use DI. It is currently used in only one vehicle (Honda Stream in Japan), and I believe it redlines at 6800 rpm like the K20A does in RSX (base) and Civic Si.
detuned the 3.0 a little to back off the hp, which might bump up fuel economy a bit. But as it is, I think it's pretty impressive. It gets better economy than the Altima 3.5 and Camry 3.3, but it's faster than the Camry engine. And depending on whose road test you read, it sometimes comes out quicker than the Altima! I think that's the best of both worlds...power AND economy.
Only disadvantage I can think of, though, is the Altima is torquier, so it might start to pull away once you load it down with extra passengers/cargo, or do some hilly/mountainous driving.
Altima. They proved they could not only compete with 500cc less displacement, they could increase fuel economy. That's admirable I don't care how you try to spin a negative out of it. Honda already had the most efficient V6 in the segment.
"Scion tC and Mazda3 have 2.4 and 2.3 liter engines respectively for 155-160 HP, and they are rated 23/30 mpg and 24/29 mpg respectively."
You have the fuel economy figures switched around, respectively.
"And newcar31, if you suggest K24A over K20A, why stop with 160 HP and not go on to 200-210 HP?"
Because the 200-210 hp 2.4Ls are higher strung, less fuel efficient, more complicated, and more expensive than the 160 hp 2.4L. I figured that would be obvious, but I guess not.
I remember why I stopped frequenting this forum. You guys just go around in circles, debating for the sake of debating.
"That's admirable I don't care how you try to spin a negative out of it."
I'm not putting a negative spin on it. The new 3.0L is an awesome engine. I'm showing that maybe, just maybe, Honda will pay a little closer attention to what's available in the Civic's class....just like what they've been doing with the Accord.
And that means I expect more than 130 hp for the top engine in the next generation Civic even though it doesn't "need" it and even though some of you may not agree. Much more than 130 hp. Enough to match or beat competitors, just like they did with the Accord. Whether that comes from a 2.0L or a 2.4L, it needs to happen IMO.
Packaging a 2.5/V6 in an engine bay designed to have 2.0-2.5 I-4 may be a challenge, however. Plus a V6 will add to the weight, not only by itself, but also via additional structural supports. Even if it amounts to 60-80 lb., it can be seen as considerable gain especially if it doesn’t offer power and torque advantage.
that some small V-6'es might weigh less than some big 4-cyl engines? Or, at least about the same? I know that used to be the case with inline-6 versus some small V-8 engines. Often not much of a difference in weight, and sometimes the V-8 actually came off weighing less!
If they have to start boring some of these 4-cyl engines out to increase their displacement, they might have to start going for larger blocks, which is going to make a longer block, which could be more difficult to put in a transverse setting, unlike a compact 60-degree V-6, which would take up a shorter, more square area.
Engine torque isn’t the end of it all in a car. You would have to look at gearing for a better picture of how a car would perform. Another difference in Honda’s approach has been to be able to use regular grade gasoline to get the rated power, whereas Nissan (and Toyota) recommend premium grade for rated output.
With premium grade being 10-12% more expensive, the effect is similar to giving as much fuel economy advantage to the vehicles that use regular grade fuel. With that in effect, 4500 lb. 255 HP Odyssey (non-VCM) could boast fuel economy (in terms of dollars for miles covered, in city or highway) similar to 225 HP Camry or 250 HP Altima.
As for the Accord 3.0, taller gearing could have helped a little beyond its rated 21/30 mpg rating, but at the expense of performance.
Because the 200-210 hp 2.4Ls are higher strung, less fuel efficient, more complicated, and more expensive than the 160 hp 2.4L.
I will leave the "complicated" and "more expensive" part out since neither you nor I have a clue about it, and for that matter, we never considered cost as a factor between 2.0 and 2.4, anyway.
However, funny you mention the higher strung thing. If Honda were to use the 2.4 from Accord, it would deliver 160 HP at just 5500 rpm. Compare that to 160 HP at 6500 rpm in Mazda3. Not too long ago, Mazda 2.5/V6 was getting 160 HP at 6000 rpm.
Now here things get more interesting. The 200 HP version of the 2.4 is actually stronger than the 160 HP 2.4 at the low and mid range, and this comes from applying VTEC to the exhaust side as well. As for the top end, which would you rather have, 160 HP at 6500 or 200 HP at the same rpm?
Honda is good in getting more power from a given displacement at a lower or same engine speed than most, if not all, while maintaining fuel economy and emissions ratings. Even in case of the new RL, 300 HP from 3.5 is accomplished at just 6200 rpm, that by itself is impressive to me. Just compare that to 255 HP at 6500 rpm from Cadillac STS’s 3.6/V6 or 277 HP @ 6200 rpm in upcoming Infiniti M35.
"I will leave the "complicated" and "more expensive" part out since neither you nor I have a clue about it"
Really? Do you think the 160 hp 2.4L costs the same and is as complicated as the 200 hp 2.4L? What about that VTEC on the exhaust side? Is that free? Does it install itself at the factory? Why not use the 200 hp 2.4L in the Accord then?
"If Honda were to use the 2.4 from Accord, it would deliver 160 HP at just 5500 rpm."
That'd be awesome in the Civic.
"As for the top end, which would you rather have, 160 HP at 6500 or 200 HP at the same rpm?"
Since they both cost the same and are equally complicated, sure, I'd take the 200 hp motor.
I'm not looking to start a flame war over this, but it seems that the assumption of several posters here is that fuel economy and max hp are like two sides of a balance (scale). Add to one side and the other side changes proportionately. That isn't necessarily true.
HP is measured at the top end of the rev band. in the case of many Hondas, that's above 6,000 rpms.
Fuel economy is measured with driving conditions that seldom get above 3,500 rpms.
So, assuming that a 3.0 with 200 hp would have been more efficient than a similar 3.0 with 240 hp is not a safe assumption. They could perform in an identical manner within the lower rpms ranges.
"I'm not looking to start a flame war over this, but it seems that the assumption of several posters here is that fuel economy and max hp are like two sides of a balance (scale). Add to one side and the other side changes proportionately. That isn't necessarily true."
There are other factors, like gearing. There is also such a thing as tuning and gearing more for economy than performance.
"There are other factors, like gearing. There is also such a thing as tuning and gearing more for economy than performance."
So I guess you understand then that Honda can use a 1.8 in the Civic since it can be tuned to produce the hp numbers and I-vtec enables Honda to gear it more for economy by widening the torque band.
"So I guess you understand then that Honda can use a 1.8 in the Civic since it can be tuned to produce the hp numbers and I-vtec enables Honda to gear it more for economy by widening the torque band."
That's pretty vague. I-vtec is great, but it's not miraculous. It helps widen the torque band, but it still cannot make up for displacement, which is why there's no 2.2L 240 hp I4 in the Accord instead of the 3.0L 240 hp V6. Sure, Honda could use a 1.8L and make it perform and get good gas mileage in the Civic and it'd be perfectly adequate. I would personally prefer the Accord's 2.4L to the hypothetical 1.8L, which would undoubtably have more torque than a 1.8L, be more relaxed at cruising speeds, and get better fuel economy than the Accord with the same engine......and the Accord already gets more than respectable fuel economy #s, the Civic's would be even better, and it'd be one hell of a performer, especially stoplight to stoplight. I figure you could add at least a couple MPGs to the Accords #s if the 2.4L was in the lighter Civic. 28 mpg city, 35 or so highway. 2.4L Civic. Awesome. The fast and furious crowd would eat those things up.
The same way they tuned and geared the Civic HX or HF or whatever it was called vs. the regular Civic.
Civic HX utilizes a lean burn variant (VTEC-E) of the 1668 cc I-4 used in regular Civics. So, a little help comes from that area. Besides, it is geared a bit taller to sacrifice some performance and extract higher fuel economy. Here are the three overall drive ratios for the Civic lineup (HX/LX/EX): 1: 13.29/14.23/13.86 2: 6.72/7.69/8.25 3: 4.48/5.10/5.47 4: 3.29/3.99/4.28 5: 2.73/2.92/3.34
We were talking about engines alone. Gearing is an entirely different matter. So is weight. Comparing a Civic EX to an HX and claiming that the engine alone is responsible for the differences is seeing only half the story.
I expect more than 130 hp for the top engine in the next generation Civic even though it doesn't "need" it and even though some of you may not agree.
I expect, (at least) 190 HP and likely from K20A. That is the engine Civic Si should have had when it arrived. Even with that kind of power, and performance potential, it should be possible for Honda to get the car’s EPA estimate rated at 24-25 mpg in city (and 31-32 mpg on highway).
Seriously though, what tells you that displacement is free?
There is also such a thing as tuning and gearing more for economy than performance. I addressed this earlier. Why should Honda’s compromise lean towards economy in an engine designed for performance? For economy, Honda has the 2.4 available in the Accord!
Which is why there's no 2.2L 240 hp I4 in the Accord instead of the 3.0L 240 hp V6.
Not 2.2-liter 240 HP I-4, but a 2.0-liter 220 HP I-4 was Honda’s choice for its sportiest Accord in the Japanese market.
And Honda has a torquier I-4 (2.4, 200 HP/171 lb.-ft) or better yet the V6 (3.0, 250 HP/228 lb.-ft) available. So, why do you think that Accord gets a 2.0?
andre1969 Unless V6 has some kind of metallurgical advantage, I don’t see why it would be lighter.
ateixeira You guys remember the tiny 1.8l V6 Mazda used to have?
Smaller displacement six bangers have been around for a while. Honda has one available in a facility right next to Civic’s production facility (the 1.8-liter Flat-6 used in Gold Wing GL1800 and Valkeryie Rune). I believe Honda’s first automotive V6 involved a 2.0-liter displacement (besides a 2.5), used in 1985 Legend (Japanese market).
I’m not sure if Toyota still does, but European market Lexus IS had a 2.0-liter I-6 (rated 154 HP @ 6400 rpm; 143 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm). The Mazda 1.8/V6 was offered as an optional engine for three of four years of the 1992-1995 MX-3. Here are some MX-3 details (5-speed manual): 1.6/I-4: 105 HP/106 lb.-ft; 2443 lb; 29/37 mpg; $14K (1994) 1.8/V6: 130 HP/115 lb.-ft; 2600 lb; 23/29 mpg; $16.5K (1994)
Now you know why I said this earlier (#3139): “I will leave the "complicated" and "more expensive" part out since neither you nor I have a clue about it”
You should be telling, not asking, me about costs if you care to make it a part of your argument.
Why is the Accord's 3.0L "designed for performance"? That's right, it's called ALTIMA.
What about Altima? Either you didn't read my story with the timeline earlier, or you chose to ignore it. Which one is it?
Comments
Doesn't fit with what the Civic is supposed to be. Right?
Elaborate. If it is about fuel economy and emissions, Honda has a 155 HP K20B available that fits the requirements of civic-sense.
I wouldn't mind a car with 900 cc engine, but it will have to be small and light to complement the engine's output. Heck, I would love to own a Honda S800 today, if I can find one (800 cc engine).
I was being a smart-[non-permissible content removed].
Remember when I criticized the Civic for not offering something bigger than a 1.7L and all the Honda freaks jumped on my back because the "Civic doesn't need a bigger engine" and "That's not what the Civic is all about" and "The Civic is about economy" and "The Civic is the best car in the world and the Mazda3 sucks and is just a piece of crap Ford" bla bla bla...remember that?
"If it is about fuel economy and emissions, Honda has a 155 HP K20B available that fits the requirements of civic-sense."
Couldn't Honda update the 1.7L to get even better mileage than it does now and much better than the K20B? Sure they could. The Civic doesn't "need" a K20B.
I said that a while ago and got blasted, because the Civic isn't about performance.
Oh, I see! I should probably put my "flame suit" on before the blasting begins! ;-) But come to think of it, most the "souped up" little cars we see on the street are Civics or other Honda/Acura cars.
But seriously, I understand the basic "mission" of the Civic. We just ditched a 2001 EX because we couldn't stand it anymore. It's not a "Bad" car, but more evolutionary changes throughout the years wouldn't hurt either. The Accord isn't "performance-oriented" either, but Honda upped the power to 240 for the 2003 V6 models. And last time I checked, no one complained that the V6 Accord had too much power.
Before I get bashed, I'd like to say that I admire Honda's engineering capabilities. That's exactly why I feel they should have done more to improve one of their bread-and-butter cars. I guess we'll see how the next generation turns out.
Perhaps a perspective from the past might help re-ignite the subject, by bringing back the memories. I believe this was my first post (#2180) along the lines...
"Honda needs to redefine the Civic lineup and provide for a choice of engines. DX and LX could continue to appeal to the people with civic-sense. Perhaps a new generation of K-series motor with 1.7-1.8-liter displacement could do it. EX could use the K20A with 150-160 HP for people who want more power. And then, take the LX, add sport suspension/alloy wheels, K20A with 170-200 HP and call it “Si”."
Couldn't Honda update the 1.7L to get even better mileage than it does now and much better than the K20B? Sure they could. The Civic doesn't "need" a K20B.
Civic certainly doesn't "need" K20 (A or
Going from 1996-2000 to 2001-present Civic, D17 brought an additional 78 cc displacement (1590 cc to 1668 cc). A little improvement in low end power, and the fuel economy went up a little.
D17 will be eventually have to be replaced. Honda has mentioned use i-DSI technology for 1.2-1.5-liter displacement engines (Civic Hybrid, and Euro Honda Jazz use 1.3/i-DSI). And above it, i-VTEC.
As for K20B, it is more fuel efficient and cleaner than the K20A. It is Honda's DI engine, and can run as lean as 65:1.
Based on the existing 2.4L and 2.0L available in the Accord and Civic Si in the US, the 2.4L does seem like a better choice. They're both based on the same engine architecture, so there really isn't a size or weight advantage for the 2.0L, and the heavier Accord performs just as well if not better than the Si acclereration-wise, all the while returning better fuel economy with a bigger engine and more torque. But we've already been through this before.
"As for K20B, it is more fuel efficient and cleaner than the K20A."
Seems like Honda missed the boat with the Civic Si then, huh? Wonder why they didn't use the cleaner and more efficient engine for the US Civic Si? That seems very un-Honda like to choose the dirtier, and less efficient engine. Surely there must have been a reason.
The biggest reason not to put a 2.4L engine in the Civic is where would they go from there? I mean you can't have a V6 economy car and 2.5L is about as large as you want to go with a 4. All the brands putting large 4 cylinder engines in their eco cars are running into a wall IMHO. It's a desperate move to attract buyers and shows a lack of engineering prowess.
Honda should stick with status quo and go with a 1.8L tuned for the model.
I don't think the big engine has helped them much. A year or two ago the Sentra was actually dead last in the JDP APEAL study, the car owner's liked the least.
ouch.
-juice
And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with a V-6 economy car. You used to be able to get a V-6 in the Chevy Cavalier, Pontiac Sunbird, Ford Tempo/Mercury Topaz, and Dodge Shadow/Plymouth Sundance. Now granted, back in those days, these types of cars competed more with the Accord and Camry than they did cars like the Civic or Corolla.
That makes sense? That's the argument against a 2.4L in the Civic? That's a really strong argument.
I guess you could say the same thing about the 170 hp V6 Accord, when the older Accords had 110 hp 4 cyls. What's going on with their engineering when they need a HUGE 2.7L instead of the 2.0L that was working just fine? The Legend used to have a 2.7L, now the RL is coming with a 3.5L. What does that say about Honda engineering? Was it a "desperate move to attract buyers and shows a lack of engineering prowess."?
When the 170 hp V6 came out in the Accord, where could Honda possibly go from there? Well, lets see. They went to 200 hp. Where could Honda possibly go from 200 hp? I dunno, maybe 240 hp. Oh wait, they already did that. What's next 260 hp? This is getting crazy, WAY outta line with the Honda "status quo".
"Honda should stick with status quo and go with a 1.8L tuned for the model."
If Honda sticked with the "status quo", the Accord would still have a 1.8L.
Mazda3's 2.3l and Scion tC's 2.4l are better reasons, if you ask me.
-juice
They have never needed displacement.
A 1.8L will suffice. They have already proven they can get 160 hp out of 1.6.
Honda has proven they can get 300hp out of 3.0l in a Car and Driver a few years back. It was in a Accord Coupe that they were doing engine development work on.
The RL has always had a 3.5. This year it has V-tec for 300hp.
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1997/acura/rl/759/specs.html?tid=edmu- nds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Acura*
Actually...Status quo.
And the first 2.7L V6 in the Accord was a stopgap before the 3.0 in the following generation. That Accord had to be modified to accept even THAT small V6.
The Civic has gained 100cc with each generation since the beginning. A 1.8 would be following "status quo" with the Civic.
The Accord 4 cylinder has gained 100-200cc. I'm curious if there will be a 2.5. That would be a large 4. As far as the 240 hp V6. It IS keeping with Honda philosophy. They increased power AND fuel economy. How cool is that?
The car that really upped the ante in this field was the Dodge/Plymouth Neon, which way back in 1994 (as an early '95 model), came with 132 hp standard, right from the beginning. Unfortunately now, a decade later, they STILL come standard with 132 hp!
Back in '94-95 though, most small cars were still jerking you around with maybe 90-115 hp (although the '95 Cavalier jerked you around with 120)
Yet they've added it anyways. Weird.
"The RL has always had a 3.5."
Good one. Yet the RL has not always been the RL. Remember the Legend?
"And the first 2.7L V6 in the Accord was a stopgap before the 3.0 in the following generation. That Accord had to be modified to accept even THAT small V6."
What was the point then? Why did they even bother with the V6? Could it be because all of the competitors offered one? Just maybe?
"As far as the 240 hp V6. It IS keeping with Honda philosophy. They increased power AND fuel economy. How cool is that?"
They could have made it with less hp and even better fuel economy. But they didn't. I wonder if that had anything to do with the 240 hp Altima?
On a humorous note, some of the drivers Ed cars around here are Sentra SE-R's!!! I can only imagine what those teachers are going through
Back when I took driver's ed, we used Cutlass Cieras.
Keep it light and a 1.7 or 1.8 will do fine in the Civic. Honda will advance displacement when it's needed, but they have a big bag of tricks to work through before that becomes necessary.
How?
And newcar31, if you suggest K24A over K20A, why stop with 160 HP and not go on to 200-210 HP? As for Civic Si, I have always believed that Honda should have used the K20A and gearing from RSX. The Si isn’t geared well for 0-60 run since it requires an additional shift, and too bad, most people use that to measure an engine. Heck, Honda should have gone with 190-210 HP version of the K20A in Civic Si. Perhaps, they will, the next time around.
Only disadvantage I can think of, though, is the Altima is torquier, so it might start to pull away once you load it down with extra passengers/cargo, or do some hilly/mountainous driving.
You have the fuel economy figures switched around, respectively.
"And newcar31, if you suggest K24A over K20A, why stop with 160 HP and not go on to 200-210 HP?"
Because the 200-210 hp 2.4Ls are higher strung, less fuel efficient, more complicated, and more expensive than the 160 hp 2.4L. I figured that would be obvious, but I guess not.
I remember why I stopped frequenting this forum. You guys just go around in circles, debating for the sake of debating.
Calling the 200hp 2.4 more blah blah than the 160hp one but can't see why it would make more sense to use a 1.8 or 2.0 in the Civic.
Just for an example.
They say there's a forest out there but all you see is trees.
I'm not putting a negative spin on it. The new 3.0L is an awesome engine. I'm showing that maybe, just maybe, Honda will pay a little closer attention to what's available in the Civic's class....just like what they've been doing with the Accord.
And that means I expect more than 130 hp for the top engine in the next generation Civic even though it doesn't "need" it and even though some of you may not agree. Much more than 130 hp. Enough to match or beat competitors, just like they did with the Accord. Whether that comes from a 2.0L or a 2.4L, it needs to happen IMO.
More "blah blah"? The "blah blah" in my post is important and deserves more than calling it "blah blah".
Lol.
If they have to start boring some of these 4-cyl engines out to increase their displacement, they might have to start going for larger blocks, which is going to make a longer block, which could be more difficult to put in a transverse setting, unlike a compact 60-degree V-6, which would take up a shorter, more square area.
With premium grade being 10-12% more expensive, the effect is similar to giving as much fuel economy advantage to the vehicles that use regular grade fuel. With that in effect, 4500 lb. 255 HP Odyssey (non-VCM) could boast fuel economy (in terms of dollars for miles covered, in city or highway) similar to 225 HP Camry or 250 HP Altima.
As for the Accord 3.0, taller gearing could have helped a little beyond its rated 21/30 mpg rating, but at the expense of performance.
I will leave the "complicated" and "more expensive" part out since neither you nor I have a clue about it, and for that matter, we never considered cost as a factor between 2.0 and 2.4, anyway.
However, funny you mention the higher strung thing. If Honda were to use the 2.4 from Accord, it would deliver 160 HP at just 5500 rpm. Compare that to 160 HP at 6500 rpm in Mazda3. Not too long ago, Mazda 2.5/V6 was getting 160 HP at 6000 rpm.
Now here things get more interesting. The 200 HP version of the 2.4 is actually stronger than the 160 HP 2.4 at the low and mid range, and this comes from applying VTEC to the exhaust side as well. As for the top end, which would you rather have, 160 HP at 6500 or 200 HP at the same rpm?
Honda is good in getting more power from a given displacement at a lower or same engine speed than most, if not all, while maintaining fuel economy and emissions ratings. Even in case of the new RL, 300 HP from 3.5 is accomplished at just 6200 rpm, that by itself is impressive to me. Just compare that to 255 HP at 6500 rpm from Cadillac STS’s 3.6/V6 or 277 HP @ 6200 rpm in upcoming Infiniti M35.
I always thought that was strange.
Balance shafts and modern tech allow large 4 bangers that are still acceptably smooth.
Didn't Porsche have a 2.7l I-4 at one point? Someone did. There were big I-4 truck engines, too.
-juice
http://www.edmunds.com/used/1990/porsche/944/1371/specs.html?tid=- - edmunds.u.prices.leftsidenav..6.Porsche*
Didn't make that much power either. Compared to Honda's V6.
If "standard" power gets any higher, I guess V6's will be standard.
Really? Do you think the 160 hp 2.4L costs the same and is as complicated as the 200 hp 2.4L? What about that VTEC on the exhaust side? Is that free? Does it install itself at the factory? Why not use the 200 hp 2.4L in the Accord then?
"If Honda were to use the 2.4 from Accord, it would deliver 160 HP at just 5500 rpm."
That'd be awesome in the Civic.
"As for the top end, which would you rather have, 160 HP at 6500 or 200 HP at the same rpm?"
Since they both cost the same and are equally complicated, sure, I'd take the 200 hp motor.
HP is measured at the top end of the rev band. in the case of many Hondas, that's above 6,000 rpms.
Fuel economy is measured with driving conditions that seldom get above 3,500 rpms.
So, assuming that a 3.0 with 200 hp would have been more efficient than a similar 3.0 with 240 hp is not a safe assumption. They could perform in an identical manner within the lower rpms ranges.
I bet with today's technology they could make it smooth, but in that price class 4 cylinders are a no-no (remember the Esprit?).
-juice
There are other factors, like gearing. There is also such a thing as tuning and gearing more for economy than performance.
So I guess you understand then that Honda can use a 1.8 in the Civic since it can be tuned to produce the hp numbers and I-vtec enables Honda to gear it more for economy by widening the torque band.
That's pretty vague. I-vtec is great, but it's not miraculous. It helps widen the torque band, but it still cannot make up for displacement, which is why there's no 2.2L 240 hp I4 in the Accord instead of the 3.0L 240 hp V6. Sure, Honda could use a 1.8L and make it perform and get good gas mileage in the Civic and it'd be perfectly adequate. I would personally prefer the Accord's 2.4L to the hypothetical 1.8L, which would undoubtably have more torque than a 1.8L, be more relaxed at cruising speeds, and get better fuel economy than the Accord with the same engine......and the Accord already gets more than respectable fuel economy #s, the Civic's would be even better, and it'd be one hell of a performer, especially stoplight to stoplight. I figure you could add at least a couple MPGs to the Accords #s if the 2.4L was in the lighter Civic. 28 mpg city, 35 or so highway. 2.4L Civic. Awesome. The fast and furious crowd would eat those things up.
1.8L---base engine
2.4L---optional
That's my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it.
Civic HX utilizes a lean burn variant (VTEC-E) of the 1668 cc I-4 used in regular Civics. So, a little help comes from that area. Besides, it is geared a bit taller to sacrifice some performance and extract higher fuel economy. Here are the three overall drive ratios for the Civic lineup (HX/LX/EX):
1: 13.29/14.23/13.86
2: 6.72/7.69/8.25
3: 4.48/5.10/5.47
4: 3.29/3.99/4.28
5: 2.73/2.92/3.34
Fuel Economy Ratings
HX: 36/44 (117 HP)
LX: 32/38 (115 HP)
EX: 32/37 (127 HP)
I expect, (at least) 190 HP and likely from K20A. That is the engine Civic Si should have had when it arrived. Even with that kind of power, and performance potential, it should be possible for Honda to get the car’s EPA estimate rated at 24-25 mpg in city (and 31-32 mpg on highway).
Why not use the 200 hp 2.4L in the Accord then?
It is used in Accord. :-)
Seriously though, what tells you that displacement is free?
There is also such a thing as tuning and gearing more for economy than performance.
I addressed this earlier. Why should Honda’s compromise lean towards economy in an engine designed for performance? For economy, Honda has the 2.4 available in the Accord!
Which is why there's no 2.2L 240 hp I4 in the Accord instead of the 3.0L 240 hp V6.
Not 2.2-liter 240 HP I-4, but a 2.0-liter 220 HP I-4 was Honda’s choice for its sportiest Accord in the Japanese market.
And Honda has a torquier I-4 (2.4, 200 HP/171 lb.-ft) or better yet the V6 (3.0, 250 HP/228 lb.-ft) available. So, why do you think that Accord gets a 2.0?
Unless V6 has some kind of metallurgical advantage, I don’t see why it would be lighter.
ateixeira
You guys remember the tiny 1.8l V6 Mazda used to have?
Smaller displacement six bangers have been around for a while. Honda has one available in a facility right next to Civic’s production facility (the 1.8-liter Flat-6 used in Gold Wing GL1800 and Valkeryie Rune). I believe Honda’s first automotive V6 involved a 2.0-liter displacement (besides a 2.5), used in 1985 Legend (Japanese market).
I’m not sure if Toyota still does, but European market Lexus IS had a 2.0-liter I-6 (rated 154 HP @ 6400 rpm; 143 lb.-ft @ 4400 rpm). The Mazda 1.8/V6 was offered as an optional engine for three of four years of the 1992-1995 MX-3. Here are some MX-3 details (5-speed manual):
1.6/I-4: 105 HP/106 lb.-ft; 2443 lb; 29/37 mpg; $14K (1994)
1.8/V6: 130 HP/115 lb.-ft; 2600 lb; 23/29 mpg; $16.5K (1994)
Seriously though, what tells you that displacement has to correlate with cost?
Which engine would you guess to cost more, the Integra Type-R engine, or the 2.4L in the Accord?
What about an NSX 3.2L vs. a 5.7L smallblock Chevy crate motor?
Or a 4.0L Ford Ranger V6 vs. a 4.0L Jaguar V8?
How about a BMW 3.2L I6 vs. a Ford 3.8L V6?
OBVIOUSLY, there are other factors besides displacement that greatly affect cost.
"Why should Honda’s compromise lean towards economy in an engine designed for performance?"
Why is the Accord's 3.0L "designed for performance"? That's right, it's called ALTIMA.
“I will leave the "complicated" and "more expensive" part out since neither you nor I have a clue about it”
You should be telling, not asking, me about costs if you care to make it a part of your argument.
Why is the Accord's 3.0L "designed for performance"? That's right, it's called ALTIMA.
What about Altima? Either you didn't read my story with the timeline earlier, or you chose to ignore it. Which one is it?