Newcar, as usual, you veer right around the issue. My response was not to talk about the Si, but a response to your eating crow remark. Read carefully all of my posts, ans some of yours, and you will notice that I was ready to bet you that the 06 Civic EX/LX would not have more than 140-145 or so HP, and I stand by that. As soon as you saw this report on a 2.4 going into a Civic somewhere in the world, you started the 'eating crow' thing. All I am saying is that let's wait till the 06 Civic comes out and we will all know who is going to eat crow.
Secondly, I said that Honda had a powerplant in the Civic that they felt was sufficient in the segment, and that there wouldn't be a huge hike in the HP figures for the 06 Civic. They may go to around 140-145, but not anywhere near to what you are suggesting, even with the Mazda3 getting 160HP. The reason I brought in the Si this time worund was for the bet, since I didn't want you to come back in a year and say 'I told you so' if the 06 Si did have 200HP. Let's be clear on one thing, we are discussing the LX/EX Civic, so let's watch the HP numbers on the 06 for these variants, and then hunt some crows.
It isn't too big. Civic doesn't need 2.4, and thats the opinion I have been putting forward for eons now.
Civic will do just fine with a K20 under the hood. You can keep your hopes alive, at least in NA, I don't expect to see K24 offered in Civic, anytime soon. In RSX, yes.
That's what I don't get either. I was pretty dissapointed with the current version Civic when it came out, but having the 2.4 available as an OPTION (seems to be a foreign concept here) would have gone a long way.
Just don't understand why there can't be an option package or another trim level that would have the 2.4 instead of the 1.7 (which just doesn't do it for me). Yes I realize the 1.7L is a good motor for its size, but I'd be willing to pay a decent chunk more for the 2.4 motor (plus hopefully a suspension upgrade as some sort of package).
"Who's to say that all other versions of the Civic would disappear if a 2.4L were offered?"
Sorry. All this talk about the Civic "needing" a 2.4L sounded like people thought the Civic needed to have a 2.4L.
As in, why bother selling a 2.0L.
I maintain that cannibalization will be the limiting factor, and a 2.4L Civic would be a niche model by Honda's wishes and thus out of the scope of this conversation (if the debate on whether the Si and Type R should count in this conversation ever ended).
At this point in time, Honda can produce just about any vehicle in any plant. As Robertsmx mentioned, the Accord is currently being assembled at the East Liberty plant along with Civics and Elements. So where the RDX is being built isn't really a good indicator for what is going to be built.
Also, (this is for you, Raychuang) the Edix/FR-V is the same "platform" as the CR-V and Element. So suggesting that will be based on the Edix is essentially the same as saying it is based on the CR-V.
The Detroit News article I linked to earlier states, "a new platform." For all we know, it's just a journalist using terms out of context. I wouldn't read too much into it, but there it is.
AWD will likely be standard. It is not an option on the MDX or the RL. Even though there is technically an option for it on the CR-V, Pilot, and Element, the number of buyers for the FWD models disappears as the base price climbs.
Personally, I like the idea I've seen floated in other forums. The RDX will be based on similar underpinnings to the JDM Elysion. It is an "Accord" platform, but not as large as the light truck platform used by the Pilot, MDX, and Ody. The Elysion is a bit bigger than the JDM Ody (pre 1999 Ody here), but not as big as the US Ody. The resulting crossover SUV would probably be about the same size as the old RX300 or Highlander.
A 3.0L VCM-equipped engine cranking out 240 ponies would be sufficient for the sporting crowd and enough to motivate the larger platform. That happens to be the optional engine for the Elysion. I doubt very much that Acura dealers would want the same AWD system used in the current CR-V and Element, so expect VTM-4 or possibly SH-AWD. The approximate 220 lbs added with these systems would almost necessitate the V6 in a sporting vehicle.
There is good reason to expect the CR-V to be based on this RDX. There has been a trend in the small SUVs to go larger and larger with each redesign or addition to the class. The CR-V is already technically a mid-size vehicle. So, I cannot discount that possibility.
However, the CR-V is one of the best-selling vehicles in its class on the world-wide stage. With the addition of a diesel engine in the UK, it is likely to take the #1 slot. Making it fit into the mid-size class for US buyers would probably endanger its popularity in other markets. Perhaps we'll soon see a US CR-V that is different than what the rest of the world gets. Kinda like the US Accord and US Odyssey.
"All this talk about the Civic "needing" a 2.4L sounded like people thought the Civic needed to have a 2.4L.
As in, why bother selling a 2.0L."
2.0L, 2.4L, whatever, something more powerful than the current 1.7L, available as an OPTION. Something.
I don't know why this idea is considered far out by some. Why would it be "niche"?
It's not like the Civic would be a gas hog with the 2.4L, just look at the Accord with that engine. It gets outstanding gas mileage for a midsize.
The Civic with that engine should get a little better mileage than the Accord with the 2.4L....which would put it in the high 20's city and mid to high 30s on the highway.
For the lower model lines, they could still offer something between a 1.7L-2.0L that gets better mileage than the 2.4L.
It's just my suggestion. I'm not saying the Civic "needs" a 2.4L. I'm not saying Honda's run is going to run out if the Civic doesn't get a 2.4L either.
I mean, it's unlikely for Honda to sell a 2.4L Civic EX. They're so scared that Civic Type R sales would hurt the RSX that they don't give us that Civic. They'd be scared that every 2.4L Civic EX lost them an Accord or TSX sale. It's a very real issue for Mazda with their 3/6 overlap - and it's only bad for marketers, not for us, but they're the ones making the decisions.
So I think they'd restrict the 2.4L to a car they know won't sell in high volumes. Or they'd put it in the Acura EL (the Acura Civic, in Canada) and pad it up enough that they actually get more money if someone buys one than if they get an Accord.
Don't you think it is kind of weird that the Spectra scored so poorly, and the identical-in-all-but-name Elantra scored tops? Or is the Elantra listed in the article still the old one? I forget.
At least its safety record is one thing Honda doesn't need to hide behind ("Occupant safety is a priority for Kia," the company said in a statement" - yeah, uh huh), and the Civic's standard side air bags and curtains for '06 will maintain the edge it has in that department.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The Accord doesn't need 240 hp. The Accord really doesn't even need a V6.
You would like to think so, but Accord’s sales were dwindling when Honda did not offer V6. As a result, a quick fix was implemented, by using the C27 from old Legend. 1994-1997 Accord chassis wasn’t designed to carry a V6, but “the need” forced engineers to somehow squeeze the transversely mounted V6 under the hood by stretching the chassis (V6 models were about 3 inch longer). This also made V6 an expensive proposition.
The 1998 redesign guaranteed increase in size to accommodate “the need” for V6. As a result, the car grew in size and since there was no “special treatment” needed that enabled Honda to drop the price on V6 model. So, let us not talk about “need” without a proper understanding of the whole picture.
As for 240 HP, I have couple of questions for you:
- How much HP do you think Accord needs?
- How much HP do you think Honda could have obtained from its current design in V6 without your eyes getting any bigger? And why?
"but Accord’s sales were dwindling when Honda did not offer V6."
Was that the main reason? What's the mix of I4/V6 sales for the Camry? Accord? Were the sales "dwindling" or was it a normal fluctuation, like what's happening with the Civic right now?
"let us not talk about “need” without a proper understanding of the whole picture."
There's no need for you to give me an Accord history lesson.
"How much HP do you think Accord needs?"
It would've done just "fine" with 200-220 hp.
How much HP do YOU think the Accord "needs"?
"How much HP do you think Honda could have obtained from its current design in V6 without your eyes getting any bigger? And why?"
I'm not sure what you mean by my "eyes getting any bigger"
But, I'm sure Honda could wring more than 240 hp out of the 3.0L.
Civic sales are far from “dwindling” right now. They are up, as a matter of fact and may hit 310-315K mark by the end of the year. However in case of Accord, check out the sales before V6 was offered:
1990: 417K
1991: 399K
1992: 393K
1993: 330K
1994: 367K
1995: 341K
The “quick fix” V6 apparently helped a little
1996: 382K
1997: 385K
But major redesign changed it considerably, with price (on V6) dropping by $1000-$1500.
1998: 401K
1999: 405K
If Honda didn’t feel the need for V6, why would it try to squeeze in an old V6 into a chassis that wasn’t designed for it?
As for mix of Accord V6 to I-4, I recall a mention of 15-85 split when 1998 Accord was launched. At estimated 400K units, that amounts to about 60K units. Which would indicate that Honda estimated 340-350K units of Accord sold with I-4, a trend that was noticed in the early 90s.
A historical perspective helps, believe me. It isn’t a lesson, it is dealing with facts.
It would've done just "fine" with 200-220 hp.
And why would J30A deliver 220 (or even 200 HP) in its current form? I’ve told you earlier, a few times, and I expected the “next V6” in Accord to have 80 HP/liter 2-3 years before it actually happened, simply because of the design it was going to get! Outside of deliberately underrating an engine, why would Honda choose to detune the engine?
That said, this new J-series design also managed better fuel economy with better power output. That’s the way to do it.
But, I'm sure Honda could wring more than 240 hp out of the 3.0L.
As a matter of fact, Honda already is getting more than 240 HP from the 3.0. With J32/J35 like treatment, another 20 HP is possible without having to deal with major changes.
I mean, it's unlikely for Honda to sell a 2.4L Civic EX. They're so scared that Civic Type R sales would hurt the RSX that they don't give us that Civic.
That's why I think the 2006 US-market Civic Si will get a 2.0-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at around 200 bhp (SAE), and the Acura RSX will likely get the engine originally earmarked for the next-generation Civic Type-R, namely a 2.4-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at 235-240 bhp (SAE). An RSX with 240 bhp? That car is going to be fast. :-)
that the Accord doesn't "need" a V-6, in that the 4-cyl is an adequate engine for the vast majority of automotive needs. However, how many people buy just what they need, as opposed to what they want?
Also, as these cars get bigger and bigger, they're going to need, bigger, stronger engines. Maybe 240 hp in a car like this really is overkill, but at the same time it's also starting to become the norm in a car this size. If that's what people want, then Honda better be ready to deliver.
My response was hidden in a logical evaluation of a simple fact, and as a question to you that you did not respond to. Here it is again:
Why do you think Honda went thru the pain of stretching 1995 Accord’s chassis to fit an old V6?
SOHC 3.0L with over 240 hp?
Yep. There are two variants of the engine in Japanese market (250 HP/218 lb.-ft as used in Honda Inspire and 250 HP/228 lb.-ft as used in Honda Elysion). And remember, 270 HP 3.2/V6 and 300 HP 3.5/V6 are derivatives from within the family of the 3.0/V6. If Honda tweaked its 3.0/V6 to the same level as it has done for TL (or RL), we would see 255-260 HP. And this is before we get into the realms of DOHC, something Honda may not need unless they plan on pushing the output production to well beyond 7000 rpm.
As it is, the 240 HP is said to be in detuned form to use regular grade gasoline (in American Accord only).
Unhide it. How much power do you think the Accord "needs"? It's a simple question. Give us a numerical answer, not an analysis.
"Why do you think Honda went thru the pain of stretching 1995 Accord’s chassis to fit an old V6?"
That's a good question. I don't know. They could've gotten that power from one of their 4s. The Accord doesn't "need" a V6, but I guess the consumers were telling Honda that they "wanted" one. Lol.
on how you define "need" Does the Accord need a V-6 to get it moving fast enough that it doesn't endanger your life every time you pull out into traffic? Of course not. The 4-cyl does that job just fine. Now maybe if you loaded one up with 5 passengers and a bunch of luggage, it might scare you when you try to merge in front of an oncoming semi, but for most applications it's just fine.
However, if enough consumers want something bad enough, and demand it, then that automaker NEEDS to deliver if it wants to stay in business, or at least be profitable. Just imagine the sorry shape that the Accord would be in today if they only offered 4-cyl power. Okay, even if 4-cyl engines make up, say, 80% of total production, I'm sure the V-6 actually does get a lot of buyers in the door, who then decide that the 4-cyl is enough for them.
Besides, everybody in this market has a V-6 now, so Honda had better have one, as well. Okay, so maybe it doesn't have to be a 240 hp V-6, but I'm not going to fault them for that!
Unhide it. How much power do you think the Accord "needs"? It's a simple question. Give us a numerical answer, not an analysis.
I did, and in my own way! But you responded to it anyway so I will handle it as it comes (below). To answer the question you ask me, Accord (or any vehicle) needs no more than 18-20 lb per HP. And I back it up with my own purchase decision over seven years ago (although my car has a weight/power ratio of 21:1). Not only did I save over a grand on purchase price, I may have saved an average of 15-20% in fuel costs (roughly, another $1500-2000).
That's a good question. I don't know. They could've gotten that power from one of their 4s. The Accord doesn't "need" a V6, but I guess the consumers were telling Honda that they "wanted" one. Lol.
You don’t know but you continue to argue like you do. At the same time, you’re trying to confuse between needs of a business versus wants of consumers. A balance must be achieved because wants are usually limitless. You continue to suggest that Civic needs 2.4. Why do you think so? Would you suggest Civic needs 3.0/V6? Why?
As a business you’ve to make a sensible choice to succeed, instead of shooting arrows into the unknown, limitless world.
Speaking of power, however, sure Honda was getting more power out of its 4s, when it HAD TO (you know it now) stretch the chassis to fit in a V6. But, the business realized the need to offer V6, hence they did it. If you asked consumers, they could have as well asked for 230 HP 3.2/V6 from the Legend (the “want”).
"At the same time, you’re trying to confuse between needs of a business versus wants of consumers. A balance must be achieved because wants are usually limitless."
Is a 240 hp Accord a balance between the needs of a business and the wants of a consumer? Were the typical Accord consumers just begging for a 240+hp Accord? Nah. They weren't.
back when 200 hp was the norm for a V-6. But times change, and Honda had to change with it. If they stayed the same, they would've gotten clobbered.
Way back in 1955, when Chevy came out with that little 265 V-8, it put out 162 hp. That was very respectable...back in 1955! But if that was all they were offering just 2 years later, they would've been laughed right out of business! You can't just stay the same, let everybody else pass you by, and expect to stay a winner.
Is a 240 hp Accord a balance between the needs of a business and the wants of a consumer? Were the typical Accord consumers just begging for a 240+hp Accord? Nah. They weren't.
240 HP was a result of available technology that also allowed to improve fuel economy. And this would not be the first time if I told you that I anticipated Accord V6 to deliver 240 HP 2-3 years before it happened. That guesswork was based on simple fact: extension of technology that J-series already had in some variants.
Business need demanded V6 in the first place. If you can disapprove this somehow try it. And it "may be" marketing need that 240 HP may not make sense in a few years from now. But, like you say, customers didn't ask for it, and they were happy with 200 HP.
So, what is the disconnect here, if we apply the same logic to Civic? Civic doesn't need 2.4 or 3.0, it needs an upgraded engine with reasonable power while meeting the specifications that have made it a success story in the first place. And at this time, 2.0 would be just fine and more than enough for continued success, as long as it doesn't sway from the core of the success.
I look at it like this. Car companies are always wanting to make their cars closer to superlative. That means more horses, higher torque, and better gas mileage (and maybe lower price) . Honda is like any other company in that respect. Honda is proving that they can wring large amounts of power out of moderately sized engines.... (probably to offset its lack of V-8 power)
Was the V-6 Accord needed?
Not for most people. The I-4 is great.
Was it wanted?
Yep. Probably for marketing reasons, and to extend the price range of the Accord up, so they can reach a more affluent crowd
The Civic is fine with the Si.... displacement doesn't tell half of it. It's small and it's funky, a lot like other sport compacts, and not too badly priced. If the Si went too much higher, it would butt heads with the Acura RSX. I think it's RSX.... oh well, whatever.
Even though I like the Si, it is a little low on horses when compared to the Evo or WRX. For a couple more grand you could have an SRT-4. For the same price, you could get an XRS. I think that Honda just needs to make the car lighter to take advantage of its power. And I bet you a dollar that Honda could squeeze more out of that 2 liter.
Kind of like they did with the previous-gen s2000.
Another friend of mine just went and bought a Civic LX and consulted me AFTER he did it. I didn't try to guilt trip him, but he seems to be happy. So let's not make the 2.0 or 2.4 the Civic's standard engine. I think he was shopping by mileage numbers.
Anyway onto other Honda stuff. The rumors of no new NSX and the discontinuation of the s2000 are scary. I don't think what worked for Toyota will work as well for a smaller company. Honda's proved that while they don't like rwd for mainstream applications, their lack of experience doesn't hurt their rwd cars at all. The roadster market is glutted and all, but I think it really helps them to have a $30k+ pure sports car in their lineup.
a funny blurb in one of the car mags recently where in November, or maybe it was October, Honda sold more NSX's than Insights - I think it was five of one and seven of the other. I know it was single digits for sure.
grbeck: "After all of this back-and-forth over possible power plants for the new Civic, the debut of the real thing next year will be almost anticlimatic."
Geez, you can say that again. And again, and again...
Despite all the talk here, I will bet they still have a gas-sipper version with the lowest power engine equipped with lean-burn i-VTEC, and still also have a base version with a sub-2.0 engine, hopefully making 130 hp to match Corolla now. Of course, I hope they give the EX and SI sedans and coupes quite a bit more power, as opposed to the 10-horse differential that exists between the LX and EX now. I am thinking, 25 hp steps from the LX to the EX to the SI would be fine with me. :-)
(And I am sure Honda cares what I think!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Despite all the talk here, I will bet they still have a gas-sipper version with the lowest power engine equipped with lean-burn i-VTEC, and still also have a base version with a sub-2.0 engine"
Despite all the talk?
I never said they wouldn't have gas sipper versions and sub-2.0L base engines.
that was not aimed at anyone in particular, I swear. The posts with the Civic engine war are beginning to blur before my eyes, so I may have missed something along the way, but the gist I got was that people are hoping for two engines which might be a 2.0 and a 2.4.
I think i-VTEC will be applied across the line for the next run, and it might be cool if they had three engines, one of which could be the existing K20A slightly detuned. And if they stuck a 2.4 in a very limited run type R sorta Civic, that would be cool. Then the third engine could be a little 1.8 to go head to head with the current Corolla, Focus (except ST) and Sentra etc.
Has anyone speculated what might be the result of merely slapping i-VTEC on the 1.7 they currently use? That might do 130 hp all by itself and would cost them less in R&D.
I DID NOT mean to provoke further debate on this, sorry. I will zip it from now on! :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I disagree with your opinion that Accord V6 was a want, not a need. If it were just a want, Honda would have redesigned 1994 Accord to carry a V6 instead they applied a quick fix, and continued until the larger 1998 Accord arrived.
The rumors of no new NSX and the discontinuation of the s2000 are scary.
I agree, but until I hear from Honda, I wouldn’t weigh in too much into these rumors. If Honda had “other ideas”, I see no reason for them to relocate production of NSX and S2000 to a different facility (Tochigi to Suzuka) this year. Relocation would have required investment! I don’t see a point in doing it with no future plan.
S2000, however, may not last forever as is. Initial rumors were about it being a limited edition model, some thought one generation (five years) and currently it is in its sixth year of model run.
we are FAR too narrow a demographic for Honda to base any decision on, or even allow to exert much influence. Civic may be an important model here in the U.S., but that is nothing to its importance to Honda worldwide. Every time they renew the Civic, the new design is one of the most important things for the company that they ever do. I think the new car in '01 leaned towards pleasing the rest of the globe more than the U.S.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Comments
Secondly, I said that Honda had a powerplant in the Civic that they felt was sufficient in the segment, and that there wouldn't be a huge hike in the HP figures for the 06 Civic. They may go to around 140-145, but not anywhere near to what you are suggesting, even with the Mazda3 getting 160HP. The reason I brought in the Si this time worund was for the bet, since I didn't want you to come back in a year and say 'I told you so' if the 06 Si did have 200HP. Let's be clear on one thing, we are discussing the LX/EX Civic, so let's watch the HP numbers on the 06 for these variants, and then hunt some crows.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041220/ap_on_re- _us/crash_tests
And why wouldn't I?
There were people in here that said that a 2.4L engine is entirely too big for a car like the Civic.
The Civic would lose a lot of buyers if its mileage dropped into the twenties...
Civic will do just fine with a K20 under the hood. You can keep your hopes alive, at least in NA, I don't expect to see K24 offered in Civic, anytime soon. In RSX, yes.
Who's to say that all other versions of the Civic would disappear if a 2.4L were offered?
"Civic doesn't need 2.4"
I can't argue with that. The Accord doesn't need 240 hp. The Accord really doesn't even need a V6.
"Civic will do just fine with a K20 under the hood."
I'm sure it would. It's doing "fine" right now with a 1.7L
Just don't understand why there can't be an option package or another trim level that would have the 2.4 instead of the 1.7 (which just doesn't do it for me). Yes I realize the 1.7L is a good motor for its size, but I'd be willing to pay a decent chunk more for the 2.4 motor (plus hopefully a suspension upgrade as some sort of package).
Sorry. All this talk about the Civic "needing" a 2.4L sounded like people thought the Civic needed to have a 2.4L.
As in, why bother selling a 2.0L.
I maintain that cannibalization will be the limiting factor, and a 2.4L Civic would be a niche model by Honda's wishes and thus out of the scope of this conversation (if the debate on whether the Si and Type R should count in this conversation ever ended).
Also, (this is for you, Raychuang) the Edix/FR-V is the same "platform" as the CR-V and Element. So suggesting that will be based on the Edix is essentially the same as saying it is based on the CR-V.
The Detroit News article I linked to earlier states, "a new platform." For all we know, it's just a journalist using terms out of context. I wouldn't read too much into it, but there it is.
AWD will likely be standard. It is not an option on the MDX or the RL. Even though there is technically an option for it on the CR-V, Pilot, and Element, the number of buyers for the FWD models disappears as the base price climbs.
Personally, I like the idea I've seen floated in other forums. The RDX will be based on similar underpinnings to the JDM Elysion. It is an "Accord" platform, but not as large as the light truck platform used by the Pilot, MDX, and Ody. The Elysion is a bit bigger than the JDM Ody (pre 1999 Ody here), but not as big as the US Ody. The resulting crossover SUV would probably be about the same size as the old RX300 or Highlander.
A 3.0L VCM-equipped engine cranking out 240 ponies would be sufficient for the sporting crowd and enough to motivate the larger platform. That happens to be the optional engine for the Elysion. I doubt very much that Acura dealers would want the same AWD system used in the current CR-V and Element, so expect VTM-4 or possibly SH-AWD. The approximate 220 lbs added with these systems would almost necessitate the V6 in a sporting vehicle.
There is good reason to expect the CR-V to be based on this RDX. There has been a trend in the small SUVs to go larger and larger with each redesign or addition to the class. The CR-V is already technically a mid-size vehicle. So, I cannot discount that possibility.
However, the CR-V is one of the best-selling vehicles in its class on the world-wide stage. With the addition of a diesel engine in the UK, it is likely to take the #1 slot. Making it fit into the mid-size class for US buyers would probably endanger its popularity in other markets. Perhaps we'll soon see a US CR-V that is different than what the rest of the world gets. Kinda like the US Accord and US Odyssey.
As in, why bother selling a 2.0L."
2.0L, 2.4L, whatever, something more powerful than the current 1.7L, available as an OPTION. Something.
I don't know why this idea is considered far out by some. Why would it be "niche"?
It's not like the Civic would be a gas hog with the 2.4L, just look at the Accord with that engine. It gets outstanding gas mileage for a midsize.
The Civic with that engine should get a little better mileage than the Accord with the 2.4L....which would put it in the high 20's city and mid to high 30s on the highway.
For the lower model lines, they could still offer something between a 1.7L-2.0L that gets better mileage than the 2.4L.
It's just my suggestion. I'm not saying the Civic "needs" a 2.4L. I'm not saying Honda's run is going to run out if the Civic doesn't get a 2.4L either.
So I think they'd restrict the 2.4L to a car they know won't sell in high volumes. Or they'd put it in the Acura EL (the Acura Civic, in Canada) and pad it up enough that they actually get more money if someone buys one than if they get an Accord.
At least its safety record is one thing Honda doesn't need to hide behind ("Occupant safety is a priority for Kia," the company said in a statement" - yeah, uh huh), and the Civic's standard side air bags and curtains for '06 will maintain the edge it has in that department.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You would like to think so, but Accord’s sales were dwindling when Honda did not offer V6. As a result, a quick fix was implemented, by using the C27 from old Legend. 1994-1997 Accord chassis wasn’t designed to carry a V6, but “the need” forced engineers to somehow squeeze the transversely mounted V6 under the hood by stretching the chassis (V6 models were about 3 inch longer). This also made V6 an expensive proposition.
The 1998 redesign guaranteed increase in size to accommodate “the need” for V6. As a result, the car grew in size and since there was no “special treatment” needed that enabled Honda to drop the price on V6 model. So, let us not talk about “need” without a proper understanding of the whole picture.
As for 240 HP, I have couple of questions for you:
- How much HP do you think Accord needs?
- How much HP do you think Honda could have obtained from its current design in V6 without your eyes getting any bigger? And why?
Was that the main reason? What's the mix of I4/V6 sales for the Camry? Accord? Were the sales "dwindling" or was it a normal fluctuation, like what's happening with the Civic right now?
"let us not talk about “need” without a proper understanding of the whole picture."
There's no need for you to give me an Accord history lesson.
"How much HP do you think Accord needs?"
It would've done just "fine" with 200-220 hp.
How much HP do YOU think the Accord "needs"?
"How much HP do you think Honda could have obtained from its current design in V6 without your eyes getting any bigger? And why?"
I'm not sure what you mean by my "eyes getting any bigger"
But, I'm sure Honda could wring more than 240 hp out of the 3.0L.
"And why?"
Why what?
1990: 417K
1991: 399K
1992: 393K
1993: 330K
1994: 367K
1995: 341K
The “quick fix” V6 apparently helped a little
1996: 382K
1997: 385K
But major redesign changed it considerably, with price (on V6) dropping by $1000-$1500.
1998: 401K
1999: 405K
If Honda didn’t feel the need for V6, why would it try to squeeze in an old V6 into a chassis that wasn’t designed for it?
As for mix of Accord V6 to I-4, I recall a mention of 15-85 split when 1998 Accord was launched. At estimated 400K units, that amounts to about 60K units. Which would indicate that Honda estimated 340-350K units of Accord sold with I-4, a trend that was noticed in the early 90s.
A historical perspective helps, believe me. It isn’t a lesson, it is dealing with facts.
It would've done just "fine" with 200-220 hp.
And why would J30A deliver 220 (or even 200 HP) in its current form? I’ve told you earlier, a few times, and I expected the “next V6” in Accord to have 80 HP/liter 2-3 years before it actually happened, simply because of the design it was going to get! Outside of deliberately underrating an engine, why would Honda choose to detune the engine?
That said, this new J-series design also managed better fuel economy with better power output. That’s the way to do it.
But, I'm sure Honda could wring more than 240 hp out of the 3.0L.
As a matter of fact, Honda already is getting more than 240 HP from the 3.0. With J32/J35 like treatment, another 20 HP is possible without having to deal with major changes.
You never answered my question though. I answered yours, you could be nice and answer mine.
How much power do you think the Accord "needs"?
"As a matter of fact, Honda already is getting more than 240 HP from the 3.0."
They are? SOHC 3.0L with over 240 hp?
I knew they got more that 240 with the DOHC 3.0L, but an extra two cams is a "major" change IMO.
That's why I think the 2006 US-market Civic Si will get a 2.0-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at around 200 bhp (SAE), and the Acura RSX will likely get the engine originally earmarked for the next-generation Civic Type-R, namely a 2.4-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine rated at 235-240 bhp (SAE). An RSX with 240 bhp? That car is going to be fast. :-)
Also, as these cars get bigger and bigger, they're going to need, bigger, stronger engines. Maybe 240 hp in a car like this really is overkill, but at the same time it's also starting to become the norm in a car this size. If that's what people want, then Honda better be ready to deliver.
My response was hidden in a logical evaluation of a simple fact, and as a question to you that you did not respond to. Here it is again:
Why do you think Honda went thru the pain of stretching 1995 Accord’s chassis to fit an old V6?
SOHC 3.0L with over 240 hp?
Yep. There are two variants of the engine in Japanese market (250 HP/218 lb.-ft as used in Honda Inspire and 250 HP/228 lb.-ft as used in Honda Elysion). And remember, 270 HP 3.2/V6 and 300 HP 3.5/V6 are derivatives from within the family of the 3.0/V6. If Honda tweaked its 3.0/V6 to the same level as it has done for TL (or RL), we would see 255-260 HP. And this is before we get into the realms of DOHC, something Honda may not need unless they plan on pushing the output production to well beyond 7000 rpm.
As it is, the 240 HP is said to be in detuned form to use regular grade gasoline (in American Accord only).
Unhide it. How much power do you think the Accord "needs"? It's a simple question. Give us a numerical answer, not an analysis.
"Why do you think Honda went thru the pain of stretching 1995 Accord’s chassis to fit an old V6?"
That's a good question. I don't know. They could've gotten that power from one of their 4s. The Accord doesn't "need" a V6, but I guess the consumers were telling Honda that they "wanted" one. Lol.
However, if enough consumers want something bad enough, and demand it, then that automaker NEEDS to deliver if it wants to stay in business, or at least be profitable. Just imagine the sorry shape that the Accord would be in today if they only offered 4-cyl power. Okay, even if 4-cyl engines make up, say, 80% of total production, I'm sure the V-6 actually does get a lot of buyers in the door, who then decide that the 4-cyl is enough for them.
Besides, everybody in this market has a V-6 now, so Honda had better have one, as well. Okay, so maybe it doesn't have to be a 240 hp V-6, but I'm not going to fault them for that!
I did, and in my own way! But you responded to it anyway so I will handle it as it comes (below). To answer the question you ask me, Accord (or any vehicle) needs no more than 18-20 lb per HP. And I back it up with my own purchase decision over seven years ago (although my car has a weight/power ratio of 21:1). Not only did I save over a grand on purchase price, I may have saved an average of 15-20% in fuel costs (roughly, another $1500-2000).
That's a good question. I don't know. They could've gotten that power from one of their 4s. The Accord doesn't "need" a V6, but I guess the consumers were telling Honda that they "wanted" one. Lol.
You don’t know but you continue to argue like you do. At the same time, you’re trying to confuse between needs of a business versus wants of consumers. A balance must be achieved because wants are usually limitless. You continue to suggest that Civic needs 2.4. Why do you think so? Would you suggest Civic needs 3.0/V6? Why?
As a business you’ve to make a sensible choice to succeed, instead of shooting arrows into the unknown, limitless world.
Speaking of power, however, sure Honda was getting more power out of its 4s, when it HAD TO (you know it now) stretch the chassis to fit in a V6. But, the business realized the need to offer V6, hence they did it. If you asked consumers, they could have as well asked for 230 HP 3.2/V6 from the Legend (the “want”).
Is a 240 hp Accord a balance between the needs of a business and the wants of a consumer? Were the typical Accord consumers just begging for a 240+hp Accord? Nah. They weren't.
Of course they weren't. The Accord was selling just fine with 200 hp.
Way back in 1955, when Chevy came out with that little 265 V-8, it put out 162 hp. That was very respectable...back in 1955! But if that was all they were offering just 2 years later, they would've been laughed right out of business! You can't just stay the same, let everybody else pass you by, and expect to stay a winner.
240 HP was a result of available technology that also allowed to improve fuel economy. And this would not be the first time if I told you that I anticipated Accord V6 to deliver 240 HP 2-3 years before it happened. That guesswork was based on simple fact: extension of technology that J-series already had in some variants.
Business need demanded V6 in the first place. If you can disapprove this somehow try it. And it "may be" marketing need that 240 HP may not make sense in a few years from now. But, like you say, customers didn't ask for it, and they were happy with 200 HP.
So, what is the disconnect here, if we apply the same logic to Civic? Civic doesn't need 2.4 or 3.0, it needs an upgraded engine with reasonable power while meeting the specifications that have made it a success story in the first place. And at this time, 2.0 would be just fine and more than enough for continued success, as long as it doesn't sway from the core of the success.
Was the V-6 Accord needed?
Not for most people. The I-4 is great.
Was it wanted?
Yep. Probably for marketing reasons, and to extend the price range of the Accord up, so they can reach a more affluent crowd
The Civic is fine with the Si.... displacement doesn't tell half of it. It's small and it's funky, a lot like other sport compacts, and not too badly priced. If the Si went too much higher, it would butt heads with the Acura RSX. I think it's RSX.... oh well, whatever.
Even though I like the Si, it is a little low on horses when compared to the Evo or WRX. For a couple more grand you could have an SRT-4. For the same price, you could get an XRS. I think that Honda just needs to make the car lighter to take advantage of its power. And I bet you a dollar that Honda could squeeze more out of that 2 liter.
Kind of like they did with the previous-gen s2000.
I never said it needed a 2.4L and I never even mentioned a 3.0L. 3.0L? I never suggested such a thing, quit exaggerating.
I suggested a 2.4L because it performs well in the Accord and because competitors are going with larger engines.
I'd be happy with 2.0L with 150-160 hp though.
Anything would be better than the 120-something hp engine the EX has been stuck with for ages.
Anyway onto other Honda stuff. The rumors of no new NSX and the discontinuation of the s2000 are scary. I don't think what worked for Toyota will work as well for a smaller company. Honda's proved that while they don't like rwd for mainstream applications, their lack of experience doesn't hurt their rwd cars at all. The roadster market is glutted and all, but I think it really helps them to have a $30k+ pure sports car in their lineup.
grbeck: "After all of this back-and-forth over possible power plants for the new Civic, the debut of the real thing next year will be almost anticlimatic."
Geez, you can say that again. And again, and again...
Despite all the talk here, I will bet they still have a gas-sipper version with the lowest power engine equipped with lean-burn i-VTEC, and still also have a base version with a sub-2.0 engine, hopefully making 130 hp to match Corolla now. Of course, I hope they give the EX and SI sedans and coupes quite a bit more power, as opposed to the 10-horse differential that exists between the LX and EX now. I am thinking, 25 hp steps from the LX to the EX to the SI would be fine with me. :-)
(And I am sure Honda cares what I think!)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Despite all the talk?
I never said they wouldn't have gas sipper versions and sub-2.0L base engines.
I think i-VTEC will be applied across the line for the next run, and it might be cool if they had three engines, one of which could be the existing K20A slightly detuned. And if they stuck a 2.4 in a very limited run type R sorta Civic, that would be cool. Then the third engine could be a little 1.8 to go head to head with the current Corolla, Focus (except ST) and Sentra etc.
Has anyone speculated what might be the result of merely slapping i-VTEC on the 1.7 they currently use? That might do 130 hp all by itself and would cost them less in R&D.
I DID NOT mean to provoke further debate on this, sorry. I will zip it from now on! :-(
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I don't see why they couldn't have 3 K series engines, all with different displacements.
They could have a 1.8L, a 2.0L, and the 2.4L.
Mazda has a 2.0L and 1.8L versions of their 2.3L.
I suggested a 2.4L because it performs well in the Accord and because competitors are going with larger engines.
Oh, so now we’re (somewhat) on the same page, that Civic doesn’t need 2.4. K20 will be just fine (in EX and Si/Si-R).
I agree, but until I hear from Honda, I wouldn’t weigh in too much into these rumors. If Honda had “other ideas”, I see no reason for them to relocate production of NSX and S2000 to a different facility (Tochigi to Suzuka) this year. Relocation would have required investment! I don’t see a point in doing it with no future plan.
S2000, however, may not last forever as is. Initial rumors were about it being a limited edition model, some thought one generation (five years) and currently it is in its sixth year of model run.
I think Honda might delay it's release just to keep this going. :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I'm not saying they would base any decisions on what it said in here.
I was just wondering if anyone thinks anyone from Honda has ever stumbled upon this thread.
By "pay attention" I meant, do you think if anyone from Honda saw this thread, would they find it interesting?
1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.
2. A mischievous trick; a prank.
3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.
4. Informal.
a) Something not to be taken seriously; a triviality: The accident was no joke.
b) An object of amusement or laughter; a laughingstock: His loud tie was the joke of the office.