-June 2024 Special Lease Deals-
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
2024 Chevy Blazer EV lease from Bayway Auto Group Click here
2024 Jeep Grand Cherokee lease from Mark Dodge Click here
2025 Ram 1500 Factory Order Discounts from Mark Dodge Click here
Options
Has Honda's run - run out?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
Most people never race but they stop to get gas about once a week!
-juice
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).
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.
Between you, anon, and robertsmx, that pretty much sums it up.
I'm done.
You're so accepting of others' opinions.
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.
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?
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.
Oh, I see, now it's marketing reasons rather than practical reasons.
Thanks for your cooperation and participation.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
Chat is on TONIGHT. Check out the schedule
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! :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
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.
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.
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]
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.automobilemag.com/news/0311_focusv8/
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/26405/
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?
Perhaps, TSX could be offered with K24A with J30A as an option.
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.
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?
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?
K20A and K24A are the engines we’re talking about, correct? So, what is wrong with comparing these engines (both) tuned for performance?
andre: Monster Miata? )
-juice
OK, make your point about these two engines.
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.