Not really. They were just shown in a different format.
"Sentra has a 2.5l engine but it's got the non-indy torsion beam rear suspension."
Yeah, I know, but I was trying to stay on the topic of power to weight.
"Corolla's is also not fully indy. Plus even the upgrade engine doesn't really have a significant torque advantage. And XRS probably is a tiny fraction of all Corolla/Matrix models. And if you want the indy rear it only comes with AWD and a pathetic 123hp. Plenty of issues there."
I didn't even bring up the Corolla.
"Lancer finally got on the ball with the Ralliart models, the old ones really didn't offer anything that competitors didn't have. EVO overshadows all of them. And will Mitsu even be around to honor that warranty? They're a mess."
Yeah, I know. Again, I was addressing your power to weight concern.
"The 3s is the newest in the segment and attacks it from a premium price/content angle. The back seat feels small to me, though. Does it have a flat floor like the Civic?"
What's going on here? You were talking power to weight, and I provided some numbers, and now it's "but it doesn't have an independent suspension....but the back seat is small....but the Corolla....but the A/C has issues....but Mitsu is having problems..... but, but, but, but....
Geez. If it's not one thing, it's a another, and another, and another.
"I don't think you've been reading my posts. To repeat myself, again, my "powertrain" wishlist going back several months for Civic:"
Yeah I know. But you were also going into the need/want thing with regards to a 160 hp Civic and trying to debate with me on how much hp I thought the Civic needed.
"Good news. I'm glad Honda doesn't listen to the people on Edmunds that think 200 hp is way out of line for a Civic."
I don't think anyone ever said that. I think we've said that it would be way out of line for the average Civic. Most of us think that it would be perfect for the Si.
is not the way to sell more cars. If I were an automaker, I would read keep an eye on Edmunds for reliability issues but not for product planning. Our preferences are skewed here. Especially is you consider Honda is a multi-line carmaker and the Civic is sold for many reasons other than horsepower. But some here would like to discuss ONLY the sedan and coupe Civic and ONLY the horsepower aspect of the car. That's pretty narrow minded thinking for an economy car that leads the pack in so many other areas.
"Especially is you consider Honda is a multi-line carmaker and the Civic is sold for many reasons other than horsepower."
You could say the same thing about the Accord right? I'm sure there's more to like about the Accord than it's 240 hp V6? There's got to be. Who would have guessed that Honda would match Nissan in terms of horsepower?
"But some here would like to discuss ONLY the sedan and coupe Civic and ONLY the horsepower aspect of the car."
Hey! That's me!
You're right. I think the Civic sedan and coupe need some more horsepower. The Civic Si hatchback is fine as far as power is concerned when it was introduced. Now I hear it might get 200 hp. Wow! Great!
They would be trashing a proven history of incremental improvement to the Civic. As has been pointed out, the Civic is still one of the best selling vehicles even in the face of improving competition. Horsepower, handling, styling alone doesn't sell these cars. A well rounded balance does.
By the way, Honda didn't match Nissan horsepower. They actually just matched them in performance. With a 3.0 liter engine that was half a liter less in displacement than the overkill 3.5L in the Altima.
Kinda like a 1.8 liter 140 hp Civic would probably do the same in it's segment without resorting to mid-2 liter engines which would be totally against the Civic philosophy.
"They would be trashing a proven history of incremental improvement to the Civic."
Incremental is right. The Civic EX went from 125 hp in 1992 to 127 hp in 2001.
"By the way, Honda didn't match Nissan horsepower."
Yeah they did. The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. Both had 240 hp. Matching hp. In other words, Honda matched the Altima's 240 hp when they introduced the Accord.
it is impossible to keep up with this thread any more.
I am cheered if the next SI will have 200 hp, because that means the RSX will not have less than 200 (probably 210), which should already be its base output now (given the weight and gearing it has!!!!).
I would like to see RSX become a proper premium coupe/hatch, but without becoming bloated in size, like the two-door TSX some here have proposed. Is it possible? I think so. I think it would even sell well - look at the sales success of the BMW 325Ci, which is admittedly a heavier coupe but commands a price premium over the four-door and is a really nice, well-rounded car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
to 240hp, Nissan inreased the output of the Altima to 245. Again the difference is that Honda did it without a displacement increase from the 1998 Accord and with INCREASED fuel economy.
"Incremental is right. The Civic EX went from 125 hp in 1992 to 127 hp in 2001."
All while concentrating on torque output of the same family of engines. All have been SOHC designs. Now Honda is going to a entirely new fmily of engines that should be filtered down to the at least the Civic range. The K-series has proven itself to be a screamer in the TSX and a smooth torque producer in the Accord. I feel that a 1.8L k-series Civic LX/EX will sufficiently power the next generation of Civics. And it would continue the 100 cc incremental engine displacement increases that the Civic has always had.
what makes you think the Fit won't have ABS and side curtains too? Honda has made a public commitment to have these safety features standard in all of its vehicles by 2006. So it might be heavier than you think.
I think the second-generation Fit will be designed to be slightly larger and have side-curtain airbags standard, but thanks to very careful design and more extensive use of lightweight materials, the weight gain of the second-generation Fit compared to the current car should be under 100 lbs. A 115-120 bhp SAE 1.5-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine will likely be the primary US-market engine.
I am cheered if the next SI will have 200 hp, because that means the RSX will not have less than 200 (probably 210), which should already be its base output now (given the weight and gearing it has!!!!).
I think the RSX may get a larger-displacement I-4 with i-VTEC the next model year to better differentiate from the next-generation Civic Si model. Expect around 180 bhp SAE for the "regular" RSX and 220 bhp SAE for the RSX Type-S, thanks to an increase in displacement of the engine from 2.0 to 2.2 liters.
Incremental IS right. While Civic EX didn’t get much at the top end, it was the mid range that was continually improved, as well emissions and fuel economy. There is no point in drastic changes if a vehicle sells. If it doesn’t you’ve got to look at options, otherwise, why?
Yeah they did. The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. Both had 240 hp. Matching hp. In other words, Honda matched the Altima's 240 hp when they introduced the Accord.
This is a debatable. I’m going to repeat myself (again) from several weeks ago (as well as months ago) to provide this argument to you however.
Honda gave Accord 240 HP because it could. I expected it in 2000 and mentioned it right here at Townhall. Back in autumn 1997, Accord V6 arrived with “just” 200 HP, and that was already on top at the time. Maxima had 190 HP, as did Camry. GM was offering 190-215 HP at the time from its 3.5/3.8 engines and 240 HP with supercharged 3.8.
A year later, Acura TL gets 225 HP which placed it on top in the class. Nissan “matched it” with 2000 Maxima (222 HP) and 2000 I30 (227 HP). At the time, Honda was already producing J-series V6 with 80 HP/liter (a 2.5-liter unit) for Japanese market. This was the engine that suggested possibilities of a 260 HP 3.2/V6 (TL) and a 240 HP 3.0/V6 (Accord) to me. And guess what, it did happen, albeit only for TL. But it arrived in 2001 CL Type-S first.
Nissan matched Acura CL/TL’s output with its new 3.5/V6 (Maxima and I35, eventually, G35). I can’t recall Honda making substantial engine changes during a model run, usually waits until redesign. Subtle, yes, major no. Accord didn’t get the more powerful version until redesign in autumn 2002. Altima was already using the 3.5/V6 for 240 HP. With more powerful Accord around, Nissan felt the need to bump up the power to 245 HP. New TL arrives with 270 HP, and Nissan bumps up the power for G35 to 280 HP.
Nissan has since bumped up the power output in Altima to 250 HP and going for 255 HP for SE-R (I believe). Accord Hybrid gets 255 HP too! I wouldn’t be surprised to see next Accord V6 deliver 255 HP (non-hybrid).
And we have not talked about Odyssey yet, a minivan that may have broken the mold as far as minivan power goes with 240 HP in 2002 , and currently gets 255 HP from its 3.5/V6. Let us see when Nissan responds with its Quest (already matched the old Odyssey’s output when the new Quest was launched).
This is an interesting sequence of horsepower war, but somehow few see it the way I do.
"This is a debatable. I’m going to repeat myself (again) from several weeks ago (as well as months ago) to provide this argument to you however."
What are you debating? I said that Honda matched Nissan in the hp war, and then you go on to prove my point in your post. I don't understand why you make it seem like you are refuting me when you're basically saying the same thing that I did.
"Honda gave Accord 240 HP because it could."
What is that supposed to mean? It gave the Accord 240 hp because
1. It could 2. It felt like it needed to.
Don't pretend like the Altima had nothing to do with it.
Honda "could" give the Accord 290 hp, if it felt like it needed it to be competitive.
all these front drivers are now bumping up against the horsepower threshold beyond which torque steer and traction problems cause further power increases to provide only diminishing returns...what is the next step for all these companies, Honda included? In Honda's case, maybe universal application of SH-AWD by 2010. Too bad, Subaru! :-P
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I’m refuting your assumptions with numbers. Would you say Infiniti matched Acura when they released 227 HP I30 while TL had 225 HP? Or when they released 260 HP I35/G35 when Acura had 260 HP? Or do you prefer to look at it the other way around, that Acura responded to 260 HP G35 with 270 HP TL? It is becoming a chicken and egg thing. You couldn’t simply make an argument out of relying on one or the other without having a complete picture.
What is that supposed to mean? It gave the Accord 240 hp because 1. It could 2. It felt like it needed to.
I would pick “1”. If I anticipated something simply based on observation on other offerings, I could say that “it could”. There was no need to go with 240 HP. However, if you’ve got a de-stroked version (2.5/V6) pumping 200 HP and a stroked version (3.2) pumping 260 HP, what do you expect from the 3.0/V6? Simple: 240 HP.
With 270 HP version of the updated J32A (2004+ TL), a 3.5/V6 tuned along the lines is bound to give you about 300 HP and it did in RL. Seems logical, doesn’t it?
Don't pretend like the Altima had nothing to do with it.
Back to chicken or egg, aren’t we? Why do you think Altima was transformed and given the kind of power from Nissan? BTW, if “need” alone dictates everything, you would think Accord I-4 would deliver at least 175 HP on the spec sheet. It doesn’t.
Honda "could" give the Accord 290 hp, if it felt like it needed it to be competitive.
Would you say Mazda6 isn’t competitive since it lacks power and torque compared to both, Accord and Altima? I’m betting your answer would be a resounding NO. So, I disagree with your statement above. I would say that Altima tries to be competitive in the market by boasting higher power output (that it does with I-4 as well as V6 compared to Accord). In the future, Accord may simply need sleeker exterior (interior is on top in the class right now) and perhaps minor tweaks to the enginem not necessarily at the top end, but in low-mid range, reduced emissions and improved fuel economy. Maximum HP isn’t the end of the world.
If Honda shows 15 HP incremental HP increase to Accord with each generation, and continues to follow a 5-year design cycle when it goes for the increase, it would be model year 2013 when Honda would be preparing to go past 270 HP that current TL gets. And in TL, torque steer issue is often brought up, but only with manual transmission. Just go with taller gearing to avoid it (part of the reason automatic transmission doesn’t exhibit the same). And if cars continue to gain weight like they have been, we will have a 4000 lb. Accord with 270 HP. :-)
"Not to be rude, but if you're buying a car with 115hp, there's a disconnect between that and caring about 0-60mph. "
Not really. I like small, frugal cars, but refuse to buy one that can't do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. In the environment I drive, any slower would be dangerous, IMO.
yes, sure. But if you are just going to make gearing taller anyway, why have the power boost in the first place? We have a threshold of power DELIVERY here, not just one of engine output. But I wasn't kidding, I expect all Honda V-6's to have standard AWD, hopefully a second gen SH-AWD, within a decade. I do not expect them to spend the umpteen billions of dollars it would take to change over all their platforms to RWD, which would be the logical response to this issue.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not really. The Altima was at the 240 hp mark before the Accord was.
"Would you say Mazda6 isn’t competitive since it lacks power and torque compared to both, Accord and Altima? I’m betting your answer would be a resounding NO."
Well, you'd be betting wrong. I think the Mazda6 would have been more competitive if it would've had more hp, especially considering that it's supposed to be the "zoom zoom" sedan.
But if you are just going to make gearing taller anyway, why have the power boost in the first place?
I’m not a proponent of unnecessary power boost. In fact, if it could have helped Honda achieve an mpg on Accord Hybrid by keeping peak output down to 240 HP, I would have preferred that over the “looks better in commercial” 255 HP rating. Accord V6 already has more than enough power IMO.
As for gearing, power and gearing go together in determining speed and thrust. So, if you reduce thrust and improve traction, you could go taller and greater power will result in higher speed. Accord V6 gearing (overall drive ratio) with automatic and manual transmissions: First Gear: 12.923 (MT) / 11.351 (AT) Top Gear: 2.533 (MT) / 2.303 (AT)
Either transmission gets an engine supplying same power and torque. However, Honda opted to use shorter gearing with manual transmission (by 14% in first gear and by 10% in top gear). Ignoring that more drive train losses are associated with the automatic, manual transmission would still put more thrust at same wheel speed (as in first gear). At redline, taller gearing would allow auto transmission equipped version to achieve 45 mph compared to about 40 mph for manual transmission.
So, if the thrust generated overwhelms the tires, a taller gearing could come to rescue.
I think eventually, Honda may offer AWD across the Honda/Acura lineup, either VTM-4 or SH-AWD or perhaps something new (hybrid?). A RWD platform would be nice as well but if it happens in the near future, it will come as a surprise to me.
"So, you think Mazda6 isn't competitive today? Yes or No."
Well, I can't really give you a yes or no answer to that because it depends on how you define competetive. Is the V6 hp competitive with the Accord or Altima? No. Is the size competetive? No. Is the handling competitive? Yes. Are the looks competetive? IMO, more than competetive. Is the quality competetive? Yes. Is it competent as a family sedan? Yes. Are the sales volumns competitive? No. You see, you could go on and on with this depending on your priorities.
But, it'd be more competitive if it had more hp.
"By the same token, Accord was at 200 HP while Altima had something like 155 HP. Chicken or egg continues?"
I don't see what you are debating.
The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. The Accord matched the Altima's hp. Yeah, the Altima was bumped to 245 hp, but so what? 2002 Altima, 240 hp. Honda responds with a 2003 Accord, 240 hp.
that the only reason the Accord bumped the hp to 240 on the '03 Accord, was because Nissan chucked the Maxima's 3.5 in the new Altima for '02. If it weren't for all the hype and yakking about Altimas being able to do 0-60 in under 6 seconds, it's a safe bet that Honda would've just carried the 200 hp unit over to the new design. After all, that's what Toyota did with the '02 Camry. Same 192 hp 3.0 as the '01.
Well, I have to side with Newcar1 when it comes to the 240 hp V6 in the Accord. I think it was a reaction to the V6 Altima.
The Altima came on strong when it was redesigned and had a lot of people looking at Nissan. At the same time, the styling of the Passat had a lot of people looking to VW.
In the past, Honda had to watch over their shoulder at the Camry, a great car, but not one that required a whole lot of attention. It was predictable and attracted buyers with somewhat different criteria.
Now, with Nissan and VW getting into the fray, Honda had to do some work. I agree with Robertsmx that Honda upped the 3.0L V6 to 240 hp because they could. I suspect that was a very simple fix to the Altima problem.
"What? More power? Okay, I think I've got some in my back pocket here. Yep, there you go. Problem solved."
The fact that Honda mentioned internal acceleration tests compared with the Altima shows the marketing people were thinking about it, even if the engineers were not. They were able to do it without a negative impact on fuel economy or emissions. And while it did put a crunch on the base TL (225 hp at the time), the TL also offered a 260 hp variant and was due for redesign soon.
What the Accord's V6 has to do with the Civic, I'm not sure.
The Accord responded to an hp war in the mid-size sedan class because the Altima was making a dent in Accord sales/profitability for the first time in history.
I haven't seen anything like that in the compact class. Sure, there's an hp war being waged in the sport compact segment, but not the mainstream runners. If anything, the Prius has initiated an MPG war in compacts.
If the competition were posing a serious threat to the 127 and 130 hp Civic and Corrola, I think Honda would add a bigger engine today. But they're not. So, I think Honda has the time to add a modest power boost in 2006. Afterall, Honda didn't respond to the Altima before the redesign.
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised at the rumors of a 200 hp Civic Si. I checked it out on vtec.net and supposedly the source is reliable.
"If anything, the Prius has initiated an MPG war in compacts."
And Honda has that covered. I don't see why the Civic line has to be power or MPG but not both. I see them offering a powerful Civic and a fuel sipping Civic.
"So, I think Honda has the time to add a modest power boost in 2006."
I'll bet the Civic EX gets more than a modest power boost in 2006 considering the possibility of a 200 hp Si.
But there was no k-series at all until 2 years ago.
There was no 1.7L Civic until the last redesign.
Even IF Honda went with a 240 hp engine in the Accord because of Nissan....the point is that they did it with no increase in displacement and even more fuel efficiency. That is the point that is being made about the Civic. IF Honda decides to increase the Civic HP they have an entirely new family of engines to choose from. Newcars previous argument was that Honda should use the 2.4 from the Accord. There is no reason to use the 2.4 when they can meet spec for this size car with a 1.8L while stilll keeping with the Civic "heritage". Since Civic Heritage only concerns the sedan and coupe and only inlcudes the hatchback SI when it's convenient.
"the point is that they did it with no increase in displacement and even more fuel efficiency."
I'm not debating that.
"Newcars previous argument was that Honda should use the 2.4 from the Accord."
Only because people were suggesting the Si's 160 hp 2.0L. The 2.4L performs just as well in the Accord as the 2.0L in the Civic Si in terms of handling AND fuel efficiency. If there's a better 2.0L out there, go for it.
"Since Civic Heritage only concerns the sedan and coupe and only inlcudes the hatchback SI when it's convenient."
Right back at ya.
"And it would continue the 100 cc incremental engine displacement increases that the Civic has always had"
If you want to include the current SI engine, you can say that Honda started breaking that mold with the 1999 SI when they went with the DOHC head and 160 hp in the SI not to mention the first SI coupe. The SI had alway had the EX engine in the hatch bodystyle before 1999.
I guess the competition has forced the SI to break further from the more pedestrian Civics. I don't think there is enough competition to force Honda to be a redical with the DX/LX/EX though. And if it is, it more from Corolla than anyone else. The Corrolla had a HUGE increase in sales with nearly all the money going to the interior/exterior styling. They lost IRS and used a carryover engine.
Lol. The whole time I was arguing that I thought the Civic sedan and coupe could use a little more power.
Then, everyone jumps on my back "but the Si....but the Si....but the Si....yack yack yack"
Geez. How many times do I have to say it? I think the sedan and coupe could use a little more power. The Si is fine as far as power is concerned, and it's not a coupe or sedan, which is why I'm not talking about it.
Then I say the "extra power" can be had with the "customary" 100cc increase in displacement. A 1.8L K-series can easily be tuned for a: 125 hp DX 130 hp LX 140-145 hp EX And even a 180 hp SI.
The smaller displacement would preclude the need for balance shafts so the engines should be able to rev to a more Civic-like 7500 rpm. I hate my SI's 6750 redline.
That would give a healthy increase in power throughout the range. Keep the single displacement engine thougout the range. And give each model it's own character.
As for the SI...With cars like the EVO, STI, SR-T out there. I think Honda should approach it from a different direction. I think they should turn the SI into a small Bimmer. With high levels of comfort convenience and equipment. 180-200 hp should cover it. Leave the real rubber burning to the turbo-cars cause V-tec ain't gonna beat a turbo. But none of those cars are known for coddling the driver. One thing I think Mazda did right in the 3 was taking care of the driver. A mono-spec SI at right around $19,000 can have a LOT of standard doo-dads and gee-gaws.
I can't really give you a yes or no answer to that because it depends on how you define competetive.
So we have several definitions of competitiveness between cars now? Just pick whichever definition you had used to bring up the “competitive” argument in the first place. To reiterate the question, Is Mazda6 competitive with Accord or Altima? Answer: Yes or No (pick one).
"By the same token, Accord was at 200 HP while Altima had something like 155 HP. Chicken or egg continues?"
I don't see what you are debating.
Now you don’t. This goes back to the chicken and egg debate using Accord and Altima. But since you have put another argument, let us use it (below).
The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp.
1998 Accord had 200 HP. Did Altima have 200 HP back then?
Honda matched Nissan's V6 hp. Is that statement untrue?
True if you consider Accord versus Maxima but not if you want to throw in Altima since Altima didn’t have V6 until this generation, Accord did. True?
"So we have several definitions of competitiveness between cars now? Just pick whichever definition you had used to bring up the “competitive” argument in the first place."
Well, since I was talking about horsepower, I figured it would be obvious that I was talking about being competetive in terms of horsepower.
"To reiterate the question, Is Mazda6 competitive with Accord or Altima? Answer: Yes or No (pick one)."
In terms of V6 horsepower, no.
"Before Altima came out with 240 HP, Accord had 200 HP. True?"
Yup, and in 2002, Nissan didn't match the competitors V6 power output, it surpassed it.
"True if you consider Accord versus Maxima but not if you want to throw in Altima since Altima didn’t have V6 until this generation, Accord did. True?"
You are something else.
In 2003, Honda matched the Altima in horsepower with the Accord's V6. Period.
We were talking about competitiveness of cars. HP is a small part of the equation.
Nissan didn't match the competitors V6 power output, it surpassed it.
Nissan couldn’t match, it had to launch! There was no Altima V6 while there was Accord V6. Getting my point now? As for matching (or surpassing) is concerned, it has been a part of Nissan’s game plan before Altima got V6. The old Altima came with 150 HP when Honda was “trying to match” (sounds funny, doesn’t it) with its 130-145 HP Accord. Then came 1998 Accord with 150 HP. A year or two later, Nissan had to “beat it”, right? Yep, with 155 HP they did.
All that being said, here is something to think about and share. 1998-2002 Accord V6 had 200 HP. With 2003 redesign, do you think Honda would have bumped up the output regardless of the output Nissan gave to Altima? Either way, I would like to know from you why you think so. And if you say yes, how much do you think it would had been and the basis for your assumption (remember, I have stated mine in this regard with reasoning, I expected Accord V6 to be more powerful while Altima was running around with 155 HP).
with that 200 hp V-6, it really didn't escalate the hp war that much. For one thing, Toyota had been putting a V-6 in the Camry for years before Honda did. And Nissan was a bit different back then. It didn't have a car that competed directly with the Camry and Accord. Instead, it had the Altima, which came in a bit below those cars, and the Maxima, which came in a bit above. Nissan didn't have a V-6 Altima because they didn't need a V-6 Altima. That's what the Maxima was for.
When the Altima entered the scene it raised the bar, considerably. Every bit as much as way back in 1955, when the new Chevy 265 V-8 showed that entry-level cars didn't have to be slugs.
Maxima had 190 HP engine. Camry had 192 HP. Honda went with 200 HP for the next five years. Pontiac was probably the only one that was into serious HP back then with Grand Prix GTP (240 HP). GM's 3.8/V6 was pumping (mosly) 190-195 HP.
In case of Maxima, Nissan attempted to portray it as a near luxury competitor rather than going against Camry/Accord. However, I always saw Altima/Maxima duo as a two pronged attack against the other two Japanese cars. Nissan actually continues to do the same today.
I used to think of Honda having a JDM Accord as a sportier offering in America under Accord (Torneo was a trim in Japan), that could have been like Altima/Maxima duo. I still believe it would had been a nice idea to have something like that instead of giving the larger Accord "dual duty". Offer two Accords instead! We ultimately did get the JDM Accord, but at the higher end of the spectrum.
"Nope. However, you did suggest (several times) that because the Accord was entered into an hp war, the Civic must also launch a salvo at higher hp."
Then why did you write this: "240 hp Civic!?!?"
Lol. 240 hp Civic followed by exclamation points and question marks as if I was suggesting something ridiculous and completely insane, when in reality, I suggested nowhere near 240 hp for the Civic. Whatever.
"Oh, but you want power AND 4 doors."
I guess you think that's too much to ask. I disagree. I also disagree that it's the same as asking for a diesel wagon.
Horsepower wars are good, because it means more power for us
And yes, as a previous poster stated, I never considered the Altima to be in line with the Accord. It's slightly under it, with the Maxima as it's actually between it and the TL.
Nissan's charter since the renault takeover has been to be the most powerful in it's class. (And to a certain extent, same with Pontiac).
Sure the older Maxima only had 190hp and 217 hp, then 227, etc. But it has almost always had 0-60 numbers of 6.6 seconds. Accord with 200hp, only mustered 7.7 0-60.
Pontiac may have had 240hp with the GTP, but it also had 280 pound feet of torque. Likewise, the G35 has 270 pound feet of torque.
One thing that always got to me with Honda, is that they always toute the cleanest engines, etc etc. They point out they were first to get ULEV certified. They fail to point out, their FOUR CYLINDER was first to get ULEV. GM beat everyone by getting the 3.8 V6, (yes, the pushrod that everyone calls ancient) ULEV certified back in 1999. GM even advertises that they had the worlds first ULEV V6. Honda didn't come out with a ULEV V6 until I believe 2001.
But anyways, just look at the HP Wars:
Honda took the Accord to 200hp, then 240. They took TL from 225 to 260 to 270. Nissan took Maxima from 190 to 222 to 250 to 255 to 265. They took G35 from 260 to 280 to 298.
Pontiac took Grand Prix from 240 to 260 to 300 (with 5.3 V8, coming this spring) They took the GTO from 350 to 400, right when Ford introduces the new Mustang.
Ford has GT40 with 500hp.. Chevy has new Z06 in the works with 7 litre V8 making something between 550 and 600hp.
But anyways, the power wars are great More stuff for us
The reason why Honda has been able to up the horsepower without seriously compromising fuel economy is the use of VTEC and i-VTEC variable cam timing. Indeed, the K24 2.4-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine used on the Accord sports 160 bhp but still gets 24 MPG city, 34 MPG highway on the five-speed automatic Accord, a pretty impressive feat by any standards. The 3.5-liter V-6 with i-VTEC offers 240 bhp, yet still offers 21 MPG city, 30 MPG highway with a five-speed automatic, also very impressive for such a powerful engine. I am particularly impressed with what Honda did on the higher-end 2005 Odyssey minivans using the 3.5-liter V-6 i-VTEC with Variable Cylinder Management, getting 20 MPG city, 28 MPG highway on a vehicle that weighs 4,500 pounds! :-)
I do see another 5-10% improvement in fuel efficiency as Honda phases in direct fuel injection on their engines for the US market over the next 24 months.
Comments
Not really. They were just shown in a different format.
"Sentra has a 2.5l engine but it's got the non-indy torsion beam rear suspension."
Yeah, I know, but I was trying to stay on the topic of power to weight.
"Corolla's is also not fully indy. Plus even the upgrade engine doesn't really have a significant torque advantage. And XRS probably is a tiny fraction of all Corolla/Matrix models. And if you want the indy rear it only comes with AWD and a pathetic 123hp. Plenty of issues there."
I didn't even bring up the Corolla.
"Lancer finally got on the ball with the Ralliart models, the old ones really didn't offer anything that competitors didn't have. EVO overshadows all of them. And will Mitsu even be around to honor that warranty? They're a mess."
Yeah, I know. Again, I was addressing your power to weight concern.
"The 3s is the newest in the segment and attacks it from a premium price/content angle. The back seat feels small to me, though. Does it have a flat floor like the Civic?"
What's going on here? You were talking power to weight, and I provided some numbers, and now it's "but it doesn't have an independent suspension....but the back seat is small....but the Corolla....but the A/C has issues....but Mitsu is having problems..... but, but, but, but....
Geez. If it's not one thing, it's a another, and another, and another.
"I don't think you've been reading my posts. To repeat myself, again, my "powertrain" wishlist going back several months for Civic:"
Yeah I know. But you were also going into the need/want thing with regards to a 160 hp Civic and trying to debate with me on how much hp I thought the Civic needed.
I had totally spaced out on this engine, thinking that they all came with the 127 hp engine nowadays.
I just think that might be like a 350Z owner asking whether they get 23 or 24 mpg highway.
Civics are for economy, and 350Z's are for 0-60mph.
By the way does anyone know whether a Corolla will tow 900 lb or 1,000lb ;-)
I don't think anyone ever said that. I think we've said that it would be way out of line for the average Civic. Most of us think that it would be perfect for the Si.
You could say the same thing about the Accord right? I'm sure there's more to like about the Accord than it's 240 hp V6? There's got to be. Who would have guessed that Honda would match Nissan in terms of horsepower?
"But some here would like to discuss ONLY the sedan and coupe Civic and ONLY the horsepower aspect of the car."
Hey! That's me!
You're right. I think the Civic sedan and coupe need some more horsepower. The Civic Si hatchback is fine as far as power is concerned when it was introduced. Now I hear it might get 200 hp. Wow! Great!
By the way, Honda didn't match Nissan horsepower. They actually just matched them in performance. With a 3.0 liter engine that was half a liter less in displacement than the overkill 3.5L in the Altima.
Kinda like a 1.8 liter 140 hp Civic would probably do the same in it's segment without resorting to mid-2 liter engines which would be totally against the Civic philosophy.
Incremental is right. The Civic EX went from 125 hp in 1992 to 127 hp in 2001.
"By the way, Honda didn't match Nissan horsepower."
Yeah they did. The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. Both had 240 hp. Matching hp. In other words, Honda matched the Altima's 240 hp when they introduced the Accord.
Honda DID match Nissan horsepower.
I am cheered if the next SI will have 200 hp, because that means the RSX will not have less than 200 (probably 210), which should already be its base output now (given the weight and gearing it has!!!!).
I would like to see RSX become a proper premium coupe/hatch, but without becoming bloated in size, like the two-door TSX some here have proposed. Is it possible? I think so. I think it would even sell well - look at the sales success of the BMW 325Ci, which is admittedly a heavier coupe but commands a price premium over the four-door and is a really nice, well-rounded car.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"Incremental is right. The Civic EX went from 125 hp in 1992 to 127 hp in 2001."
All while concentrating on torque output of the same family of engines. All have been SOHC designs. Now Honda is going to a entirely new fmily of engines that should be filtered down to the at least the Civic range. The K-series has proven itself to be a screamer in the TSX and a smooth torque producer in the Accord. I feel that a 1.8L k-series Civic LX/EX will sufficiently power the next generation of Civics. And it would continue the 100 cc incremental engine displacement increases that the Civic has always had.
I think the second-generation Fit will be designed to be slightly larger and have side-curtain airbags standard, but thanks to very careful design and more extensive use of lightweight materials, the weight gain of the second-generation Fit compared to the current car should be under 100 lbs. A 115-120 bhp SAE 1.5-liter I-4 i-VTEC engine will likely be the primary US-market engine.
I think the RSX may get a larger-displacement I-4 with i-VTEC the next model year to better differentiate from the next-generation Civic Si model. Expect around 180 bhp SAE for the "regular" RSX and 220 bhp SAE for the RSX Type-S, thanks to an increase in displacement of the engine from 2.0 to 2.2 liters.
Is there a 1.8L k-series engine?
"And it would continue the 100 cc incremental engine displacement increases that the Civic has always had."
The last Si kind of broke that rule.
Type-S could use the new ATTS!
Yeah they did. The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. Both had 240 hp. Matching hp. In other words, Honda matched the Altima's 240 hp when they introduced the Accord.
This is a debatable. I’m going to repeat myself (again) from several weeks ago (as well as months ago) to provide this argument to you however.
Honda gave Accord 240 HP because it could. I expected it in 2000 and mentioned it right here at Townhall. Back in autumn 1997, Accord V6 arrived with “just” 200 HP, and that was already on top at the time. Maxima had 190 HP, as did Camry. GM was offering 190-215 HP at the time from its 3.5/3.8 engines and 240 HP with supercharged 3.8.
A year later, Acura TL gets 225 HP which placed it on top in the class. Nissan “matched it” with 2000 Maxima (222 HP) and 2000 I30 (227 HP). At the time, Honda was already producing J-series V6 with 80 HP/liter (a 2.5-liter unit) for Japanese market. This was the engine that suggested possibilities of a 260 HP 3.2/V6 (TL) and a 240 HP 3.0/V6 (Accord) to me. And guess what, it did happen, albeit only for TL. But it arrived in 2001 CL Type-S first.
Nissan matched Acura CL/TL’s output with its new 3.5/V6 (Maxima and I35, eventually, G35). I can’t recall Honda making substantial engine changes during a model run, usually waits until redesign. Subtle, yes, major no. Accord didn’t get the more powerful version until redesign in autumn 2002. Altima was already using the 3.5/V6 for 240 HP. With more powerful Accord around, Nissan felt the need to bump up the power to 245 HP. New TL arrives with 270 HP, and Nissan bumps up the power for G35 to 280 HP.
Nissan has since bumped up the power output in Altima to 250 HP and going for 255 HP for SE-R (I believe). Accord Hybrid gets 255 HP too! I wouldn’t be surprised to see next Accord V6 deliver 255 HP (non-hybrid).
And we have not talked about Odyssey yet, a minivan that may have broken the mold as far as minivan power goes with 240 HP in 2002 , and currently gets 255 HP from its 3.5/V6. Let us see when Nissan responds with its Quest (already matched the old Odyssey’s output when the new Quest was launched).
This is an interesting sequence of horsepower war, but somehow few see it the way I do.
What are you debating? I said that Honda matched Nissan in the hp war, and then you go on to prove my point in your post. I don't understand why you make it seem like you are refuting me when you're basically saying the same thing that I did.
"Honda gave Accord 240 HP because it could."
What is that supposed to mean? It gave the Accord 240 hp because
1. It could
2. It felt like it needed to.
Don't pretend like the Altima had nothing to do with it.
Honda "could" give the Accord 290 hp, if it felt like it needed it to be competitive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
What is that supposed to mean? It gave the Accord 240 hp because
1. It could
2. It felt like it needed to.
I would pick “1”. If I anticipated something simply based on observation on other offerings, I could say that “it could”. There was no need to go with 240 HP. However, if you’ve got a de-stroked version (2.5/V6) pumping 200 HP and a stroked version (3.2) pumping 260 HP, what do you expect from the 3.0/V6? Simple: 240 HP.
With 270 HP version of the updated J32A (2004+ TL), a 3.5/V6 tuned along the lines is bound to give you about 300 HP and it did in RL. Seems logical, doesn’t it?
Don't pretend like the Altima had nothing to do with it.
Back to chicken or egg, aren’t we? Why do you think Altima was transformed and given the kind of power from Nissan? BTW, if “need” alone dictates everything, you would think Accord I-4 would deliver at least 175 HP on the spec sheet. It doesn’t.
Honda "could" give the Accord 290 hp, if it felt like it needed it to be competitive.
Would you say Mazda6 isn’t competitive since it lacks power and torque compared to both, Accord and Altima? I’m betting your answer would be a resounding NO. So, I disagree with your statement above. I would say that Altima tries to be competitive in the market by boasting higher power output (that it does with I-4 as well as V6 compared to Accord). In the future, Accord may simply need sleeker exterior (interior is on top in the class right now) and perhaps minor tweaks to the enginem not necessarily at the top end, but in low-mid range, reduced emissions and improved fuel economy. Maximum HP isn’t the end of the world.
Not really. I like small, frugal cars, but refuse to buy one that can't do 0-60 in less than 10 seconds. In the environment I drive, any slower would be dangerous, IMO.
Turboshadow
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not really. The Altima was at the 240 hp mark before the Accord was.
"Would you say Mazda6 isn’t competitive since it lacks power and torque compared to both, Accord and Altima? I’m betting your answer would be a resounding NO."
Well, you'd be betting wrong. I think the Mazda6 would have been more competitive if it would've had more hp, especially considering that it's supposed to be the "zoom zoom" sedan.
I’m not a proponent of unnecessary power boost. In fact, if it could have helped Honda achieve an mpg on Accord Hybrid by keeping peak output down to 240 HP, I would have preferred that over the “looks better in commercial” 255 HP rating. Accord V6 already has more than enough power IMO.
As for gearing, power and gearing go together in determining speed and thrust. So, if you reduce thrust and improve traction, you could go taller and greater power will result in higher speed. Accord V6 gearing (overall drive ratio) with automatic and manual transmissions:
First Gear: 12.923 (MT) / 11.351 (AT)
Top Gear: 2.533 (MT) / 2.303 (AT)
Either transmission gets an engine supplying same power and torque. However, Honda opted to use shorter gearing with manual transmission (by 14% in first gear and by 10% in top gear). Ignoring that more drive train losses are associated with the automatic, manual transmission would still put more thrust at same wheel speed (as in first gear). At redline, taller gearing would allow auto transmission equipped version to achieve 45 mph compared to about 40 mph for manual transmission.
So, if the thrust generated overwhelms the tires, a taller gearing could come to rescue.
I think eventually, Honda may offer AWD across the Honda/Acura lineup, either VTM-4 or SH-AWD or perhaps something new (hybrid?). A RWD platform would be nice as well but if it happens in the near future, it will come as a surprise to me.
The Altima was at the 240 hp mark before the Accord was
By the same token, Accord was at 200 HP while Altima had something like 155 HP. Chicken or egg continues?
To focus this entire discussion on what you perceive as the Civic's primary weakness is completely unfair. HP is something, but it's not everything.
I'd argue that the availability of a hybrid is more important than the availability of 160hp, and by far.
Sure, Accord matched Altima's power. Now Nissan is scrambling desperately to get a hybrid out to match the Accord hybrid.
Funny how the tables have turned!
-juice
Well, I can't really give you a yes or no answer to that because it depends on how you define competetive. Is the V6 hp competitive with the Accord or Altima? No. Is the size competetive? No. Is the handling competitive? Yes. Are the looks competetive? IMO, more than competetive. Is the quality competetive? Yes. Is it competent as a family sedan? Yes. Are the sales volumns competitive? No. You see, you could go on and on with this depending on your priorities.
But, it'd be more competitive if it had more hp.
"By the same token, Accord was at 200 HP while Altima had something like 155 HP. Chicken or egg continues?"
I don't see what you are debating.
The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp. The Accord matched the Altima's hp. Yeah, the Altima was bumped to 245 hp, but so what? 2002 Altima, 240 hp. Honda responds with a 2003 Accord, 240 hp.
Honda matched Nissan's V6 hp.
Is that statement untrue?
That's all I was saying. Why robert has to make an argument out of that, I don't know.
-juice
The Altima came on strong when it was redesigned and had a lot of people looking at Nissan. At the same time, the styling of the Passat had a lot of people looking to VW.
In the past, Honda had to watch over their shoulder at the Camry, a great car, but not one that required a whole lot of attention. It was predictable and attracted buyers with somewhat different criteria.
Now, with Nissan and VW getting into the fray, Honda had to do some work. I agree with Robertsmx that Honda upped the 3.0L V6 to 240 hp because they could. I suspect that was a very simple fix to the Altima problem.
"What? More power? Okay, I think I've got some in my back pocket here. Yep, there you go. Problem solved."
The fact that Honda mentioned internal acceleration tests compared with the Altima shows the marketing people were thinking about it, even if the engineers were not. They were able to do it without a negative impact on fuel economy or emissions. And while it did put a crunch on the base TL (225 hp at the time), the TL also offered a 260 hp variant and was due for redesign soon.
The Accord responded to an hp war in the mid-size sedan class because the Altima was making a dent in Accord sales/profitability for the first time in history.
I haven't seen anything like that in the compact class. Sure, there's an hp war being waged in the sport compact segment, but not the mainstream runners. If anything, the Prius has initiated an MPG war in compacts.
If the competition were posing a serious threat to the 127 and 130 hp Civic and Corrola, I think Honda would add a bigger engine today. But they're not. So, I think Honda has the time to add a modest power boost in 2006. Afterall, Honda didn't respond to the Altima before the redesign.
As a matter of fact, I'm surprised at the rumors of a 200 hp Civic Si. I checked it out on vtec.net and supposedly the source is reliable.
"If anything, the Prius has initiated an MPG war in compacts."
And Honda has that covered. I don't see why the Civic line has to be power or MPG but not both. I see them offering a powerful Civic and a fuel sipping Civic.
"So, I think Honda has the time to add a modest power boost in 2006."
I'll bet the Civic EX gets more than a modest power boost in 2006 considering the possibility of a 200 hp Si.
There was no 1.7L Civic until the last redesign.
Even IF Honda went with a 240 hp engine in the Accord because of Nissan....the point is that they did it with no increase in displacement and even more fuel efficiency. That is the point that is being made about the Civic. IF Honda decides to increase the Civic HP they have an entirely new family of engines to choose from. Newcars previous argument was that Honda should use the 2.4 from the Accord. There is no reason to use the 2.4 when they can meet spec for this size car with a 1.8L while stilll keeping with the Civic "heritage". Since Civic Heritage only concerns the sedan and coupe and only inlcudes the hatchback SI when it's convenient.
I'm not debating that.
"Newcars previous argument was that Honda should use the 2.4 from the Accord."
Only because people were suggesting the Si's 160 hp 2.0L. The 2.4L performs just as well in the Accord as the 2.0L in the Civic Si in terms of handling AND fuel efficiency. If there's a better 2.0L out there, go for it.
"Since Civic Heritage only concerns the sedan and coupe and only inlcudes the hatchback SI when it's convenient."
Right back at ya.
"And it would continue the 100 cc incremental engine displacement increases that the Civic has always had"
2000 Civic Si-1.6L
2002 Civic Si-2.0L
I was argueing within the boundaires YOU set.
If you want to include the current SI engine, you can say that Honda started breaking that mold with the 1999 SI when they went with the DOHC head and 160 hp in the SI not to mention the first SI coupe. The SI had alway had the EX engine in the hatch bodystyle before 1999.
I guess the competition has forced the SI to break further from the more pedestrian Civics. I don't think there is enough competition to force Honda to be a redical with the DX/LX/EX though. And if it is, it more from Corolla than anyone else. The Corrolla had a HUGE increase in sales with nearly all the money going to the interior/exterior styling. They lost IRS and used a carryover engine.
I was argueing within the boundaires YOU set."
Lol. The whole time I was arguing that I thought the Civic sedan and coupe could use a little more power.
Then, everyone jumps on my back "but the Si....but the Si....but the Si....yack yack yack"
Geez. How many times do I have to say it? I think the sedan and coupe could use a little more power. The Si is fine as far as power is concerned, and it's not a coupe or sedan, which is why I'm not talking about it.
125 hp DX
130 hp LX
140-145 hp EX
And even a 180 hp SI.
The smaller displacement would preclude the need for balance shafts so the engines should be able to rev to a more Civic-like 7500 rpm. I hate my SI's 6750 redline.
That would give a healthy increase in power throughout the range. Keep the single displacement engine thougout the range. And give each model it's own character.
As for the SI...With cars like the EVO, STI, SR-T out there. I think Honda should approach it from a different direction. I think they should turn the SI into a small Bimmer. With high levels of comfort convenience and equipment. 180-200 hp should cover it. Leave the real rubber burning to the turbo-cars cause V-tec ain't gonna beat a turbo. But none of those cars are known for coddling the driver. One thing I think Mazda did right in the 3 was taking care of the driver. A mono-spec SI at right around $19,000 can have a LOT of standard doo-dads and gee-gaws.
So there's no reason the next Civic hybrid won't get a boost in performance also.
You never know. They could match leaders with combined (gas+electric) 160-180hp and still keep SULEV or even PZEV emissions.
-juice
So we have several definitions of competitiveness between cars now? Just pick whichever definition you had used to bring up the “competitive” argument in the first place. To reiterate the question,
Is Mazda6 competitive with Accord or Altima? Answer: Yes or No (pick one).
"By the same token, Accord was at 200 HP while Altima had something like 155 HP. Chicken or egg continues?"
I don't see what you are debating.
Now you don’t. This goes back to the chicken and egg debate using Accord and Altima. But since you have put another argument, let us use it (below).
The Altima came out with 240 hp. Then the Accord came out with 240 hp.
1998 Accord had 200 HP. Did Altima have 200 HP back then?
Honda matched Nissan's V6 hp. Is that statement untrue?
True if you consider Accord versus Maxima but not if you want to throw in Altima since Altima didn’t have V6 until this generation, Accord did. True?
-juice
Well, since I was talking about horsepower, I figured it would be obvious that I was talking about being competetive in terms of horsepower.
"To reiterate the question,
Is Mazda6 competitive with Accord or Altima? Answer: Yes or No (pick one)."
In terms of V6 horsepower, no.
"Before Altima came out with 240 HP, Accord had 200 HP. True?"
Yup, and in 2002, Nissan didn't match the competitors V6 power output, it surpassed it.
"True if you consider Accord versus Maxima but not if you want to throw in Altima since Altima didn’t have V6 until this generation, Accord did. True?"
You are something else.
In 2003, Honda matched the Altima in horsepower with the Accord's V6. Period.
We were talking about competitiveness of cars. HP is a small part of the equation.
Nissan didn't match the competitors V6 power output, it surpassed it.
Nissan couldn’t match, it had to launch! There was no Altima V6 while there was Accord V6. Getting my point now? As for matching (or surpassing) is concerned, it has been a part of Nissan’s game plan before Altima got V6. The old Altima came with 150 HP when Honda was “trying to match” (sounds funny, doesn’t it) with its 130-145 HP Accord. Then came 1998 Accord with 150 HP. A year or two later, Nissan had to “beat it”, right? Yep, with 155 HP they did.
All that being said, here is something to think about and share. 1998-2002 Accord V6 had 200 HP. With 2003 redesign, do you think Honda would have bumped up the output regardless of the output Nissan gave to Altima? Either way, I would like to know from you why you think so. And if you say yes, how much do you think it would had been and the basis for your assumption (remember, I have stated mine in this regard with reasoning, I expected Accord V6 to be more powerful while Altima was running around with 155 HP).
You are something else.
Now that I couldn’t disagree with. ;-)
When the Altima entered the scene it raised the bar, considerably. Every bit as much as way back in 1955, when the new Chevy 265 V-8 showed that entry-level cars didn't have to be slugs.
Nope. However, you did suggest (several times) that because the Accord was entered into an hp war, the Civic must also launch a salvo at higher hp.
My point is that the market conditions for these cars were very different.
"I don't see why the Civic line has to be power or MPG but not both. I see them offering a powerful Civic and a fuel sipping Civic."
They do. Hybrid for mpg. Si for power. You can even get power and a near lux cabin with the RSX.
Oh, but you want power AND 4 doors. Somebody else wants a wagon, and a diesel, and a diesel wagon...
varmint Dec 1, 2004 5:34pm
In case of Maxima, Nissan attempted to portray it as a near luxury competitor rather than going against Camry/Accord. However, I always saw Altima/Maxima duo as a two pronged attack against the other two Japanese cars. Nissan actually continues to do the same today.
I used to think of Honda having a JDM Accord as a sportier offering in America under Accord (Torneo was a trim in Japan), that could have been like Altima/Maxima duo. I still believe it would had been a nice idea to have something like that instead of giving the larger Accord "dual duty". Offer two Accords instead! We ultimately did get the JDM Accord, but at the higher end of the spectrum.
Then why did you write this: "240 hp Civic!?!?"
Lol. 240 hp Civic followed by exclamation points and question marks as if I was suggesting something ridiculous and completely insane, when in reality, I suggested nowhere near 240 hp for the Civic. Whatever.
"Oh, but you want power AND 4 doors."
I guess you think that's too much to ask. I disagree. I also disagree that it's the same as asking for a diesel wagon.
And yes, as a previous poster stated, I never considered the Altima to be in line with the Accord. It's slightly under it, with the Maxima as it's actually between it and the TL.
Nissan's charter since the renault takeover has been to be the most powerful in it's class. (And to a certain extent, same with Pontiac).
Sure the older Maxima only had 190hp and 217 hp, then 227, etc. But it has almost always had 0-60 numbers of 6.6 seconds. Accord with 200hp, only mustered 7.7 0-60.
Pontiac may have had 240hp with the GTP, but it also had 280 pound feet of torque. Likewise, the G35 has 270 pound feet of torque.
One thing that always got to me with Honda, is that they always toute the cleanest engines, etc etc. They point out they were first to get ULEV certified. They fail to point out, their FOUR CYLINDER was first to get ULEV. GM beat everyone by getting the 3.8 V6, (yes, the pushrod that everyone calls ancient) ULEV certified back in 1999. GM even advertises that they had the worlds first ULEV V6. Honda didn't come out with a ULEV V6 until I believe 2001.
But anyways, just look at the HP Wars:
Honda took the Accord to 200hp, then 240.
They took TL from 225 to 260 to 270.
Nissan took Maxima from 190 to 222 to 250 to 255 to 265.
They took G35 from 260 to 280 to 298.
Pontiac took Grand Prix from 240 to 260 to 300 (with 5.3 V8, coming this spring)
They took the GTO from 350 to 400, right when Ford introduces the new Mustang.
Ford has GT40 with 500hp..
Chevy has new Z06 in the works with 7 litre V8 making something between 550 and 600hp.
But anyways, the power wars are great
I do see another 5-10% improvement in fuel efficiency as Honda phases in direct fuel injection on their engines for the US market over the next 24 months.
It's a transposition of the 240 hp Accord argument into your need for more power in the Civic.
I didn't think anyone would be silly enough to take it literally. I figured people would read the text, not just the title. My bad.