WongKN wrote: I can see the logic on both sides of the argument. And I can see that this argument will likely continue on and never end.
But at the end of the day, I think what is more important is for each individual to take a hard look at himself/herself and his/her expectations from Honda. Given that Honda has pretty much clarified the direction they are going for, I think what is left really is make a decision. To continue complaining is not going to do much good.
The only things coming out from Honda that is remotely near what some of us yearns for is probably only the NSX-2. I have even started to give up hope on ever seeing the 'promised' higher performance CR-Z. And this time, it is the LPL himself, the guy IN CHARGE of the CR-Z, whom 'promised' me and Honda enthusiasts.
To cut it short, I think people should make a decision to either stay - and accept what Honda has decided to do - or move on. We can even have the best of both worlds too. Get a high revving engine from those manufacturers who still wants to make it (looks like pretty much all other major manufacturers except Honda at this point, sad to say), like the Toyota 86 for e.g., and perhaps still support the company we like, by getting one of their mainstream models. Those are still pretty good, as long as we don't expect too much sportiness out of it.
I dunno Wong.. the two cars that I currently really would buy, an ILX-S Tech (Navi, LSD, 2.4, AT6SS) Wagon and a Civic Si NAVI Wagon (Navi, LSD, 2.2, MT6) are not being made. (Notice that I did not specify a K motor... and ED will be fine with me..)
In the meantime we are trying to get our hands on a TSX Tech Wagon.
As much as I love the high winding K20s, B18C and even the H22A.. the smaller motors (20, 18) got tiring after awhile because of lack of torque). The H22A was much easier to drive around.
The purists lament the loss of the very high red line 2 liters, and in the race track this may be true, but out on the street the slightly larger, slightly lower redline motors are the winners.
And I find that Honda Sport Shift, when properly implemented.. (ie: 04 TL yes... 01 CL no) works extremely well. I'm at the point were I think that a "multi gear sequential CVT" with a 2.0 ED motor might just be the enthusiast's ticket.
Even as I lament the loss of the MT... HMC being one of the best automakers at it.
Oh, BTW, I think the J30/32 was all the motor the Accord/TL/TSX needed.
I just think that many are yearning for the past: small, torque less wonders, with stratospheric redlines and clickety-click shifters.
Unfortunately CAFE and OBD-II are killing that. Current powertrains need to be fully configured and tactically controlled by the firmware while the driver purely provides strategic commands. (That is, while the firmware tells the powertrain HOW to do it, the driver tells the firmware WHAT to do). The end result is maximum efficiency and minimum pollution.
Hence, I think ED with "sequential" CVTs will work. Mild hybridization (a la IMA-2) fully integrated under firmware control will also maximize the efficiency of the powertrain.
There is no going back..
And the thought of Porsche SUVs and sedans is hideous. I saw a Panamerica hybrid in my neighborhood the other day... "What's the point".. I thought.....
Tony, no offense, but you clearly don't have much experience with newer edition K20's.
I have owned every single one of those engines you mention. I would not expect an Si engine in an Accord EX. Nor would I expect an Accord engine in an Si...oh wait...
First, the K20Z3 is superior in drivability and performance compared to the H22 in every way shape and form. Not only does it have a broader and more flexible powerband, but it is coupled to more gearing to boot. I have an H22 sitting in my garage with an LSD transmission in a car that weighs within 40lbs of what my Si weighs. The Si is the superior drive. Period. Not only can I drive the K20Z3 around all day at 2K RPM, but it actually produces about the same amount of forward thrust at that RPM that the H22 can manage at about 3K. Below 3K, the H22 is more lifeless than the 130HP stock SOHC F22 that pulled out of the car. The H22 is pretty much all stock except for a header, cat and high flow exhaust. Even 100% bone stock, the K20 is still more flexible. Add to that the consistent +3-5MPG the K20 gives me in city and highway cruising, and there is just no contest. The K20 is superior. Keep in mind too that saying "oh I drove an RSX-S" is not sufficient, because the K20Z3 is more flexible than the K20A1 by a pretty significant margin. I was deciding between the K20Z3 Si and the K20Z1 MMC RSX-S (itself more flexible than the K20A1), and I ultimately decided on the Si because it had more flexibility, was notably smoother and had a much better shifter interface. I won't even touch on the B18 or B16 because not only were they much smaller, but they had the H22's older tech. Your assertions about not being able to get around in a K20 are even more laughable. Not only do I keep up with traffic well below 50% of my redline (usually run between 2-3K in traffic, trying to keep it closer to 2K), but I have no issues getting around anywhere. If I DO need max delta V, then I simply get it into VTEC where I have to shift less than I would in a K24 Si due to the lower redline. Not exactly rowing like mad either, since 2nd tops out at ~70MPH, 3rd at ~90MPH and 4th around ~110MPH. Versus the H22 powered car, it is still faster. Having run several at the track, the K20 simply pulls harder. Of course, if you look at dyno graphs, the K20's usually average about 140 WTQ and run about 7-10HP more on average WHP. The H22 makes slightly more peak torque, but overall, the K20 does more work over its RPM range.
And the VTEC snap on the H22 is ridiculous. What you are feeling is Honda cutting the engine off at the kneecaps for 1000-1500RPM. It saddens me that you speak highly of the VTEC changeover because you obviously have no idea that you were costing yourself 15-20HP right through the mid-range by Honda's doing so. What's even more funny is you guys all accuse us of being essentially ricers, and yet you are the one saying "VTEC just kicked in YO!"
And sorry Tony, but the slightly larger, lower redline motors are NOT automatically the winners. You are clearly stuck in an indoctrinated mindset about automotive technologies. The engines that are the winners are the ones that deliver more power over a broader range. That is what engine technology is for. The VTC, higher compression and superior head of the K20 allow it to deliver a higher % of its power over a broader range of circumstances. That makes it more flexible, which is good for speed and flexibility. If you could actually separate the affects to technology from displacement, what you would understand is that a K24 with the technology of the K20Z3 would result in an engine that stomps the crap out of the k24Z7 without needing an 8,000 RPM redline. Forget the K20Z3 for a second. Would you rather have an engine that makes 201HP@7000 and 172 lb-ft @ 4300 or an engine that makes 220HP@7000RPM and 172 lb-ft @ 4300? Keep in mind that with DOHC VTEC etc, the 220Hp engine could also be making more torque from 2K-3K and would certainly be making more from 5-7K. No crazy redline, no boy racer persona, no exotic cost. It isn't just about the redline. It is about the character, the soul and the core values that Honda stands for (technology as a way to improve the product).
As for the rest of the assertions, they are just as silly. I have driven V6 6 speeds. Owned several automatic J30A4/A5s as well. Great engine. Certainly one of my favorite Honda engines of all time. Not something that Honda should put in a clearly niche developed pocket rocket, just like they shouldn't replace the J35 6MT Accord with a K24Z7 version. The other real irony here is that the J30A4/A5 had a powerband that much more closely matched the K20Z3's versus the K24Z7's. What I mean by that it is that it has a completely flat torque curve from 2K to just shy of 6K in the version equipped with a dual stage intake manifold. They didn't make a lot of torque for a V6, but they made it over a long, broad RPM range, which is EXACTLY how the K20Z3 makes its torque. Sure the absolute value is less, but then again, shouldn't it be with it only being 2/3 of the V6's size and cylinder count? You could look at pretty much every J series released after the 2nd gen TL Type S and see the same power curve (minus the neutered VCM engines). So really, on the one hand, you are praising the power delivery in the Accord, with its flat, broad torque curve, but then you turn around and discount it with the K20Z3. Pretty uninformed, or hypocritical. The entire point (and proven outcome) of Honda's technological march for the last 25-30 years was the ability to get more power under a broader set of circumstances from less engine. 4 valves per cylinder, PGM-FI, higher compression ratios, unequaled port design, VTEC, all designed to get engines (of any displacement) to make more power over more RPM. Now suddenly, they want to cheap out, take away what they have done, and hyrbidize everything, and anyone who wants something to the contrary is a "ricer," "boy racer" or not a true Honda fan...puhlease. Pretty soon, maybe they will give us an OHV small block so that they can meet emissions standards and CAFE... Then we can all rejoice about how Honda shed their non-sensical Honda way and finally came around to reality by shunning all of those sad, sad ricers.
Again, the other point you neglect is that nearly everyone but Honda is managing to provide what we want and they are all still meeting the same criteria Honda has to meet.
CR-V9 wrote: What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
Ah, I am glad you responded as you did. Let me explain. Perhaps I used the wrong words, trying to be too brief. I think it is more accurate to say 'true enthusiast' cars. Then there is another angle. To NON-HONDAs, like Toyota, Subaru, etc, THEIR standard for 'high revving' is 7000rpm or thereabouts. For us Honda fans, OUR standard for 'high revving' is or more accurately USED TO BE 8000-9000rpm. Therein lies the reason why so many people are constantly complaining. But why don't they leave ? Because they KNOW that if Honda does things, the standard is higher. So they really wish Honda will go back and do things they way they used to. But now, Honda has gone along the 'mainstream'. And the mainstream standard, other than the super exotics like Porsche, Ferrari, etc, are way lower than what Honda's standard used to be. THIS is what people mean by the standard from Honda is falling.
owequitit wrote: . . . The reality is that Honda is being sucked dry by bean counters and ignorant excuses. . . .
owequitit, first, I don't accept your premise. But, setting that aside for the sake of discussion, I think you are grossly underestimating what the "bean counters" are saving HMC by being "cheap."
You estimated that Honda is saving only approximately $200 per vehicle by being "cheap," and that this is costing the company thousands more in incentives to move the metal.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. However, even assuming your assumptions were correct, the company is making decent $ these days. In fact, only Porsche nets more per vehicle. And that's pretty much how you keep score in the automobile manufacturing business. You may not like it or the company's products, but cheap is working for the shareholders.
Clearly, you're unhappy. You can continue to live in frustration, raising hell about what Honda isn't, but -- as should be obvious by now -- Honda clearly is no longer "your" motor company, and that's not likely to change.
Your acceptance or refusal of my premise has no bearing on its merit. You can dismiss it if you wish. Only time can prove it true or false.
There is more to running a company that maximizing per unit profit. GM once did the same, and everyone talked about how they were doing so well... That was roughly 1975 I believe; and we all know what happened then.
There was an article posted here about Civic incentives not to long ago. It mentioned how incentives had roughly doubled to about $1000-1500 IIRC. Now, a couple of things here. First, is that if Honda is increasing incentives by $600-1000, then they would have to save more than that on a per unit basis to make it cost effective. If the redesign of the car is only saving them $500 a unit total, then they aren't netting a savings per unit are they? I don't know exact numbers for the Civic, but I know based on a lot of business case study and reading (as well as talking to friends in the industry) that a car like the Civic probably costs somewhere between $14K-$16K to produce and sell. Honda makes money on them, but they definitely have to leverage the volume equation. I remember an article about the Dodge Neon many years ago talking about how it cost Chrysler about $12K to build each one. Account for inflation and higher quality and I don't think $14-15K is unreasonable.
The reason higher end cars can sell in much smaller volumes and still make money is because production cost might increase 50-100%, but sale dollars increase 200%. Luxury is more profitable because retail increases at a rate that far exceeds the increase in build cost. Consider a 3 series that might be 28K to produce and sell, but stickers at $40K with a decent feature set, rather than $20K. The margin is much higher per unit.
The second less tangible factor that you have to consider is A) how does that increase in incentives affect resale, and B) how does the fact that they have to increase incentives to maintain volume change the balance sheet? More importantly, how does it speak to customer satisfaction and the perception of your brand when you are greatly boosting incentives to move product to customers who would have traditionally purchased it without the incentives? What does the decrease in product acceptance do long term?
Honda was traditionally very strict about the fact that they should not have to incentivize product to move it. The product should be catered to the market, and it should sell roughly at the value it was intended to sell at. For 20 years pundits have talked about it and how it was a major component of Honda's success. Even on this very sight, it comes up and gets thrown in people's faces all the time. "Honda has a higher % of retail sales." "Honda doesn't have to give as much money back." "Honda doesn't do business that way." But now they are, and we are just going to attempt to pretend it doesn't happen now. Or at least some of us are.
So why is Honda's old method better? Less cash has to change hands, but also consider this: If a customer is financing $1500 more (roughly 5-10% of the total transaction) and you are charging interest on that $1500, and you have hundreds of thousands of customers paying that $1500, how much additional money does Honda lose by putting that $1500 cash back on the hood so the customer will buy it? At what point is is more cost effective to put that money back into the interior, powertrain, suspension and noise suppression so that the customer will gladly pay the additional money?
Honda and Toyota didn't get to where they are by using Ford and GM strategy through the 80's and 90's of building low tech, rehashed, cheap at all costs cars, and then putting a pile of cash on the hood to move product. It didn't work then, and it isn't going to work now. Honda is making good $$ right now because they have increasingly been pursuing a short term financial strategy. As time goes by, it resembles the same short term strategy that sunk every single one of the 3 domestics more and more. Is it because former D3 management is largely entrenched in Honda, or is it because upper Japanese management is totally off base with what their customers actually want? Either way, I would postulate that it doesn't matter, the end result is the same.
CR-V9 wrote: What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
Your facts are not entirely correct. The FR-S and BRZ both redline at 7500RPM. They are not quite as happy in the top end as a traditional DOHC VTEC Honda, but they are revvy little engines nonetheless. Also, while 7500RPM is not remarkable compared to Honda's traditional standards (which proves Wong's point), it is on par with the H22 in older Hondas, and even produces peak power at about the same RPM.
Second, you are forgetting about cars like the 911 GT3. 7400RPM is what Porsche's REGULAR models do. Their special ones are between 8400-9200RPM (evidenced by the R18 and the upcoming 2013 GT3).
P54 wrote: ... the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K....
So, if the NSX-2 is beaten by the Porsche that costs 5 to 9 times more, then Honda is finished??
It is starting to get ridiculous.
What's next?
A comparison test between Civic Si and R8 4.2??
Ask and you shall receive, K20 Civic Type R vs Audi R8:
But seriously, why do the F1 decision makers want to keep higher RPM's?
"Starting 2014, the F1 cars will need to be powered by V6 1.6-litre turbo engine that will be rev limited to 15,000 rpm and not the originally planned 12,000 rpm that generated several concerns about the sound of the motors."
"Perhaps the most interesting conclusion after a day's driving was that both drivers agreed the Honda was more enjoyable to drive on the open roads. Simply more fun, more agile, less intimidating and a lot easier to get to the limits in."
owequitit wrote: ... No matter which way you cut it, every one of those engines is high revving (even the 427 Cubic Inch displacement -or- 7000cc) Z06 redlines at 7K RPM (just 100RPM short of the Civic Si).
So, 7k rpm is high revving, but 7.1k rpm is not?
Does it make sense?
P.S. Is the 427 engine a model of "high-revving" engine that enthusiasts look for?
505 hp / 7.0 L * 2.354 = ? [Answer: < 170 hp]
I understand perfectly well the larger displacement engine has to deal with things like more friction, but still ....
I missed the 2nd half of this earlier, but I would like to say thanks for supporting my point.
First, it is unreasonable to expect a 2 valve per cylinder, fixed cam timing engine to make anywhere near what a modern 4 valve head with superior port geometry, high flow, variable cam timing etc would produce. So yes, while the specific output is not that great on the GM 427, it IS impressive for such rudimentary technology.
How does that support my point? It is easy. The reason the more high tech engines produce more power density is because they ADD technology that allows them to do so.
That puts the LS7 at 72 HP/L. The K24 is running about 82 HP/L, which is about 16% better. But, consider that the K20Z3 was doing 100HP/L and thus had nearly 38% more power density than the LS7, or another doubling of the difference between the K24 and the LS7. The reason? The K20 was technologically superior to the K24. If Honda is such an innovator, then why are they REMOVING technology and power density from their engines?
owequitit wrote: Grace, you have to hand pick facts about emissions and CAFE in order to build your argument.
Perhaps you guys don't understand because you don't spend the time looking at the stuff some of the enthusiasts do, I don't know.
There you go again with the definition of enthusiast as if you are an enthusiast and I am not. Look, I appreciate your thorough explanations of your opinions and the facts you base them on. Everyone here appears to as well. We can all agree that no Honda engine from the past ten to fifteen years has been terribly dirty nor an inefficient powerplant for the applications they were intended and that includes the Si engine. It was a remarkable design for its time. No one here is using regulations or state mandates to explain away the actions of a car company. It's the entire mix of market forces which is to blame for what we see from Honda.
I'll be honest here and say my opinion of the K20 being dropped from the Si in favor of the K24 is evolving due to the announcement of the Earth Dreams technology. No one here has claimed to work for Honda and factually stated the reason for the change in drivetrain so we're all making what we believe to be logical assumptions. I believe even more that Honda intended the '12 Civics to all meet the ULEV standard and realized the CAFE numbers they had to meet so when they designed the original 9th Gen car as a bigger car they decided the K24 was appropriate. When they rebooted the 9th gen as a warmed-over 8th gen they were too far down the road on the supply side to go back to the K20. Knowing the ED tech would soon be adopted they chose the TSX motor for a stopgap solution. It makes perfect sense from the business side.
Yes, all manufacturers have the same CAFE regs facing them but the resultant MPG numbers calculated by those regs differ. All manufacturers must meet the same CARB mandates if they want to sell cars in California and a few other states but how the mix of products sold by each manufacturer is determined differs. All manufacturers source portions or all of their products from countries offering lower costs of manufacturing but some have made stronger commitments to building in the US the products they sell in the US. All manufacturers have made commitments to environmental concerns but we know the results differ sharply. And, trust me on this, all manufacturers are capable of building engines many folks here would describe as high revving and would probably do so if it were a sensible approach for their product mix. In terms of what my guesses are for Honda meeting the CAFE regs, I would guess Honda doesn't plan on buying credits from other manufacturers and I would guess Honda isn't banking current credits for future years.
It's when you combine all of the above factors just as the folks who run Honda or any company must do everyday that some of this makes sense. Honda introduced the Insight to the US and its sales are a major disappointment. Honda introduced the CRZ to the US and its sales are miniscule. And sales of the V6 Accords are very strong in the US. What you get with Honda is a mix of products being sold which puts them at a disadvantage in meeting the CAFE regs for 2010, 2011, 2012, and onward - as we know, the 2016 CAFE regs ramp up each year. My point all along was the K24 Si returned a few extra MPG in the EPA tests while attaining the ULEV rating Honda seems to want. There is no proof from anyone here that the K20 could return more MPG while being made cleaner just as there is no proof that Honda didn't try to make the K20 cleaner and more efficient. My guess would be Honda or any manufacturer could make any engine meet a specific target provided all criteria are available for adjustments.
Finally, no one here has stated they know what the manufacturing costs are for any of the products Honda or any company sells. Operating an individual production line for a component comes down to more than fixed costs for the parts themselves just as the folks working in the plants know the difficulty in adjusting output to meet a specific demand. We can all agree that using the K24 in the Si is probably cheaper but we will disagree that Honda wasn't prepared to add $500 to the sticker on the Si to keep the K20 available or that the work could be justified anyway now that we know the K20 would be replaced by ED tech.
One question that always bothers me about the desires for high revving engines. Why limit yourselves to 8k RPM and not something higher? Honda has built powerplants in the past with redlines up to 18k RPM with a reliable production drivetrain up to 9k. Why not ask Honda for an Si having a 10k redline or 11k?
CR-V9 wrote: What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
Ah, I am glad you responded as you did. Let me explain. Perhaps I used the wrong words, trying to be too brief. I think it is more accurate to say 'true enthusiast' cars. Then there is another angle. To NON-HONDAs, like Toyota, Subaru, etc, THEIR standard for 'high revving' is 7000rpm or thereabouts. For us Honda fans, OUR standard for 'high revving' is or more accurately USED TO BE 8000-9000rpm. Therein lies the reason why so many people are constantly complaining. But why don't they leave ? Because they KNOW that if Honda does things, the standard is higher. So they really wish Honda will go back and do things they way they used to. But now, Honda has gone along the 'mainstream'. And the mainstream standard, other than the super exotics like Porsche, Ferrari, etc, are way lower than what Honda's standard used to be. THIS is what people mean by the standard from Honda is falling.
Yeah, I know, thus the Honda video.
But I really don't know how can they do that. I really doubt how many T86 they will sell after the first year. And cars are getting better even the Veroster is good enough for Hyudai to sell decent #. I really don't know how they can make inexpensive sporty cars yet not too sporty but with technical gizmo for their iPods and iphone. Howeve I still think the ED engine family is a technical briliance.
Hence my suggestion, they'd still have to make SUVs to make money to survive, though. Make Acura a specialty car maker for people who can afford and preserve Soichiro's legacy ay the same time.
CR-V9 wrote: What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
Your facts are not entirely correct. The FR-S and BRZ both redline at 7500RPM. They are not quite as happy in the top end as a traditional DOHC VTEC Honda, but they are revvy little engines nonetheless. Also, while 7500RPM is not remarkable compared to Honda's traditional standards (which proves Wong's point), it is on par with the H22 in older Hondas, and even produces peak power at about the same RPM.
Second, you are forgetting about cars like the 911 GT3. 7400RPM is what Porsche's REGULAR models do. Their special ones are between 8400-9200RPM (evidenced by the R18 and the upcoming 2013 GT3).
Yet more street legal cars that can meet CAFE/EPA/CARB and still rev to the moon.
So you agree with my suggestion? Do you know how much those their regular cars cost? I'm not even talking about GT3 and R18.
As I said what you guys want is inexpensive high-revv-likeFerrari cars from Honda for Honda price $18k. Whethere you think technically they can do or not don't matter unfortunately.
Oh one more thing, whatever HPD sells are for racing purpose only for grasshopper motor sports, not street legal. You'd have to show your registered race car you're gonna use the parts for and agree to you will not resell the parts you buy to retail. Something like that I think.
CR-V9 wrote: So you agree with my suggestion? Do you know how much those their regular cars cost? I'm not even talking about GT3 and R18.
As I said what you guys want is inexpensive high-revv-likeFerrari cars from Honda for Honda price $18k. Whethere you think technically they can do or not don't matter unfortunately.
But that's the problem, even other cars in the same price range are revving higher and producing higher specific output than Honda now. I never thought I'd see the day where a Mustang V8 has a higher redline than the best that Honda has to offer. Even Subaru is fielding a 4 cylinder that's hitting 100 hp/L while Honda doesn't have anything close right now.
I hope the Earth Dreams engines are not a bunch of neutered and boring eco lumps because if they are that probably means we are not going to see any decent Honda performance engines for 7 to 10 years at the least.
Grace141 wrote: One question that always bothers me about the desires for high revving engines. Why limit yourselves to 8k RPM and not something higher? Honda has built powerplants in the past with redlines up to 18k RPM with a reliable production drivetrain up to 9k. Why not ask Honda for an Si having a 10k redline or 11k?
I think the reason people are merely asking for 8k rpm redlines is because we're trying very, very hard to stay with Honda. At this point Honda enthusiasts are just asking that Honda doesn't go backwards, and now we can't even get that.
I would love to see a new S2000 with 120+ hp/L or a a crazy production engine that revs to 10k rpm. But there is no sports car. There's no Type-R. All we're left with is the Civic Si. If the Si is going to be the only performance offering from Honda, why can't it at least have the qualities that Honda enthusiasts want? Instead we got a cost-cutter special.
Could you imagine if you were a big Ford Mustang fan, and Ford decided to get rid of the V8 and just gave you a supercharged V6? "It makes similar power, just not as much torque, " would be the excuse from the Ford beancounters. But people who have grown to love the Mustang as a V8 muscle car for generations would HATE IT. There's no way Mustang fans would be happy with a V6 with the same or less performance.
That is in effect what Honda is doing. Watering down what drew us to the cars in the first place. I sincerely hope the Earth Dreams engines turn it around but I'm not terribly optimistic these days.
JMU R1 wrote: I hope the Earth Dreams engines are not a bunch of neutered and boring eco lumps because if they are that probably means we are not going to see any decent Honda performance engines for 7 to 10 years at the least.
You know, if they are neutered turds, I think it will be the last straw for me.
Here is the solution, buy your Porsche or Ferrari that revs to the moon. Then drive your Honda for the daily commute when you come back to earth.
If you don't have the money for the Porsche and Ferrari then buy a Honda CBR 600 RR that will rev to March, redline starts at 15000 rpm. That little bike will give more rpm thrill than Porsche and Ferrari combined, to a fraction of the cost.
Why in the world is a $100+K car compared to a $20K car??
Honda never said they cannot build a high revving street legal car. They pulled the cars as they had to be upgraded because of new standards and they did not want to spend money on an outgoing model when a new was in the works. That the new one got pulled because of circumstances beyond Honda's control did not deter Honda from developing an even more high performance version yet to come.
Just because competition is making higher revving engines 20 years after Honda does not mean Honda has lost its ability in the engine department. They might rather have shifted focus for the time being, but are still committed to the enthusiast with new vehicles to come.
For all the years with small high revving Honda engines what has been the common complaint? That the engines are peaky, torque-less, gut-less, have to wind it out to perform etc. So for 20 years or more that is what the criticism against Honda has been. How many have complained about how tiresome the Si and R have been, you have to stay between 6-8000 rpm and row the gears. While competition was honored for more low and mid-range power. Now as Honda have put a more user friendly engine in its Si and dropped the redline by a 1000 rpm the complaints are about how it has lost its soul, the high revving nature etc. Eventually Honda will figure out the sweet spot.
P54 wrote: ... the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K....
So, if the NSX-2 is beaten by the Porsche that costs 5 to 9 times more, then Honda is finished??
It is starting to get ridiculous.
What's next?
A comparison test between Civic Si and R8 4.2??
Ask and you shall receive, K20 Civic Type R vs Audi R8:
But seriously, why do the F1 decision makers want to keep higher RPM's?
"Starting 2014, the F1 cars will need to be powered by V6 1.6-litre turbo engine that will be rev limited to 15,000 rpm and not the originally planned 12,000 rpm that generated several concerns about the sound of the motors."
They are still committed to the enthusiast? What, pray tell, would lead you to believe that they have anything to offer the enthusiast? The upcoming ED engines (I'm sorry, all I see is a Viagra commercial whenever someone types ED - what a stupid name) are not going to be enthusiast engines. They'll be absolutely fine for powering a mass market Accord or bread and butter Civic, but they're no more enthusiast engines than Hyundai's 2.4, or Ford's 2.0 DI Focus engine.
Wait, are you talking about the upcoming NSX? A 6-figure car 3 years from now, that will probably be outperformed by cars at half its price so that it can claim a green image?
Look, let's be completely honest. Honda is saying "F*** You" to their traditional enthusiasts. The 9th gen Si said, "you're really not too important anymore" and the ILX 2.4 said, "here, eat this and quit bothering me"
And BTW, the people bitching about low torque from small Honda engines were the people who weren't buying them in the first place. And you know what? Those same people are still dismissing the torque output of the K24 as paltry because they're comparing it with modern turbo engines in the same class which are putting out 20-60% more torque at a lower rpm, for the same money.
So what Honda has done is abandon the people who loved what they did best, in some asinine, but thoroughly half-assed, attempt to please the people who didn't like their way of doing things? Is that what you're saying?
Open your eyes. Honda is becoming Toyota of 15 years ago, only their Hybrid program and marketing isn't as good. Maybe in 10-15 more years they'll figure it out and try and return to their roots.
SC
P54 wrote: Just because competition is making higher revving engines 20 years after Honda does not mean Honda has lost its ability in the engine department. They might rather have shifted focus for the time being, but are still committed to the enthusiast with new vehicles to come.
For all the years with small high revving Honda engines what has been the common complaint? That the engines are peaky, torque-less, gut-less, have to wind it out to perform etc. So for 20 years or more that is what the criticism against Honda has been. How many have complained about how tiresome the Si and R have been, you have to stay between 6-8000 rpm and row the gears. While competition was honored for more low and mid-range power. Now as Honda have put a more user friendly engine in its Si and dropped the redline by a 1000 rpm the complaints are about how it has lost its soul, the high revving nature etc. Eventually Honda will figure out the sweet spot.
notyper wrote: Maybe in 10-15 more years they'll figure it out and try and return to their roots.
I tried to post several times about this but I simply just didn't. Well, I'll post it this time:
Remember the Honda 1300 Coupe 9 in 1969? It had impressive horsepower (110+) and revs to 7k from the engine and the handling tricked many to think it is rear wheel drive. What was the replacement in 1973? The CVCC Civic, that had like 50hp. That's how I see it today with today's situation.... some differences but still similar. It might be a while before something like VTEC comes up again with the expected MPG? 10-15 years sounds about right.....
owequitit wrote: So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less)
You understand, right, that this thing likely passes emissions simply because it's a hybrid?
If Honda did the same thing, everyone on this forum would be up in arms about the batteries, multiple electric motors, "automatic"-only transmission, electronic nannies, et al.
Your headline is dead on. Honda better tell Porsche that sports cars aren't allowed to be hybrids! TOV says so. (Until there is a singular stat that can be disseminated from the bigger picture in order to push an agenda.)
Grace141 wrote: One question that always bothers me about the desires for high revving engines. Why limit yourselves to 8k RPM and not something higher? Honda has built powerplants in the past with redlines up to 18k RPM with a reliable production drivetrain up to 9k. Why not ask Honda for an Si having a 10k redline or 11k?
I think the reason people are merely asking for 8k rpm redlines is because we're trying very, very hard to stay with Honda. At this point Honda enthusiasts are just asking that Honda doesn't go backwards, and now we can't even get that.
I would love to see a new S2000 with 120+ hp/L or a a crazy production engine that revs to 10k rpm. But there is no sports car. There's no Type-R. All we're left with is the Civic Si. If the Si is going to be the only performance offering from Honda, why can't it at least have the qualities that Honda enthusiasts want? Instead we got a cost-cutter special.
Could you imagine if you were a big Ford Mustang fan, and Ford decided to get rid of the V8 and just gave you a supercharged V6? "It makes similar power, just not as much torque, " would be the excuse from the Ford beancounters. But people who have grown to love the Mustang as a V8 muscle car for generations would HATE IT. There's no way Mustang fans would be happy with a V6 with the same or less performance.
That is in effect what Honda is doing. Watering down what drew us to the cars in the first place. I sincerely hope the Earth Dreams engines turn it around but I'm not terribly optimistic these days.
I would be one of those Mustang fans who lived through the 1979 Turbo-4 Cobra and 1980-81 255 V8 Mustang years. The 157hp 1982 Mustang GT 302 V8 was a welcomed return to horsepower.
notyper wrote:
And BTW, the people bitching about low torque from small Honda engines were the people who weren't buying them in the first place. And you know what? Those same people are still dismissing the torque output of the K24 as paltry because they're comparing it with modern turbo engines in the same class which are putting out 20-60% more torque at a lower rpm, for the same money.
Correct. Once Honda loses the exact shit that made it desirable, it CANNOT run with the crowd.
Here is hurdle one...and it is smiling at you, Honda. The ST and WRX are next. I hate the GTI, so that is removed from the conversation.
P54 wrote: Why in the world is a $100+K car compared to a $20K car?
Nobody is comparing a $100+k car to a $20k car. What they are saying is you can have a high-reving motor and pass emissions.
Nice try. You make it sound as if the K20 was spitting smog out of it's exhaust, it was not.
When did Honda say they could not make a high revving engine pass emission??
The comparison has been made in regard to what Porsche do with a $100K or $800K car versus the Civic Si. So where is the Porsche with high revving engine for $25K?
When Honda pulled the "R" engine and NSX it was not because they are not able to make a high revving engine to pass new emissions but because they did not want to spend money to update an old design when new vehicles were in the works. Economic crash, earthquake, tsunami, flooding etc has put the new vehicles back and Honda is planning ahead for the 2020 and beyond and hence is developing new drive-trains that will go into the future. Why spend money updating "old" engines instead of putting the money into new development.
What we see now is a transition period while we wait on the new vehicles to come out. You will be amazed.
notyper wrote: Maybe in 10-15 more years they'll figure it out and try and return to their roots.
I tried to post several times about this but I simply just didn't. Well, I'll post it this time:
Remember the Honda 1300 Coupe 9 in 1969? It had impressive horsepower (110+) and revs to 7k from the engine and the handling tricked many to think it is rear wheel drive. What was the replacement in 1973? The CVCC Civic, that had like 50hp. That's how I see it today with today's situation.... some differences but still similar. It might be a while before something like VTEC comes up again with the expected MPG? 10-15 years sounds about right.....
What vehicle put Honda on the map as a car manufacturer, the 1300 or the Civic? So the Civic was the successful vehicle that brought many to Honda, not the 1300. The 1300 was the "learning" vehicle. If high rpm is all you look for Honda made 9000rpm cars before the 1300.
Grace141 wrote: One question that always bothers me about the desires for high revving engines. Why limit yourselves to 8k RPM and not something higher? Honda has built powerplants in the past with redlines up to 18k RPM with a reliable production drivetrain up to 9k. Why not ask Honda for an Si having a 10k redline or 11k?
I think the reason people are merely asking for 8k rpm redlines is because we're trying very, very hard to stay with Honda. At this point Honda enthusiasts are just asking that Honda doesn't go backwards, and now we can't even get that.
I would love to see a new S2000 with 120+ hp/L or a a crazy production engine that revs to 10k rpm. But there is no sports car. There's no Type-R. All we're left with is the Civic Si. If the Si is going to be the only performance offering from Honda, why can't it at least have the qualities that Honda enthusiasts want? Instead we got a cost-cutter special.
Could you imagine if you were a big Ford Mustang fan, and Ford decided to get rid of the V8 and just gave you a supercharged V6? "It makes similar power, just not as much torque, " would be the excuse from the Ford beancounters. But people who have grown to love the Mustang as a V8 muscle car for generations would HATE IT. There's no way Mustang fans would be happy with a V6 with the same or less performance.
That is in effect what Honda is doing. Watering down what drew us to the cars in the first place. I sincerely hope the Earth Dreams engines turn it around but I'm not terribly optimistic these days.
I would be one of those Mustang fans who lived through the 1979 Turbo-4 Cobra and 1980-81 255 V8 Mustang years. The 157hp 1982 Mustang GT 302 V8 was a welcomed return to horsepower.
Hahaha, dark days indeed. Hopefully as Honda fans we can look back on these days and laugh, but hopefully that time will be sooner than 30 years from now.
What exactly have you seen anywhere that says that any of Honda's new engines will be "amazing"?
The ED engines are basically existing block designs with new direct injection heads. SOHC or intake on VTEC only. Only one engine has been advertised as having VTEC on both cams, but from the press release docs and reports, even that engine is still focused on fuel economy. Hell, the new family name is "Earth Dreams", not Excellent Dyno, or Evocative Dynamics, or whatever. BTW, sidebar, why did they choose a name that not only evokes male sexual disfunction in the US, but also has the same initials as BMWs already released "Efficient Dynamics"? Talk about throwing good money after bad in the marketing game.
Are we supposed to be amazed with 310 hp from 3.5 liters? 210 hp from 2.4 liters? Haven't we already been here? You know, almost 10 years ago Honda engineers brought out an factory modified Accord with a modified J30 that put out 300 hp.
Honda has surrendered in the performance game. Quit, given up, thrown in the towel. 10-15 years ago, a DOHC VTEC engine was a viable alternative to a turbo engine. Sure, you didn't have the torque, but you had similar specific power output, immediate throttle response, an awesome sound and a lot of fun to drive. And you didn't have to worry about the kind of failures you saw on turbo engines.
So, if Honda's not going to follow the rest of the industry into small displacement, direct injection turbos, where's their equivalent technology push on the NA side of things? Either they need to up specific output, install bigger engines (with more power), or lower their weight substantially below the competition. Since they've abandoned high revs, DOHC VTEC, no advanced VTEC, etc. the whole idea of higher specific outputs is out the door. And for the same reason their bigger engines are basically on par with those from other makes. That leaves dramatic weight reduction, which I also don't see. They might save 5%, but that isn't going to save them against all the mighty-mite turbo engines out there producing 120-150 hp/liter and commensurate torque while returning top of class EPA fuel economy. And a close-coupled catalyst, no exhaust VTEC 7000 rpm engine isn't going to offer the kind of driving experience that makes people willing to sacrifice a little power and a lot of torque to stay NA/Honda.
SC
P54 wrote: What we see now is a transition period while we wait on the new vehicles to come out. You will be amazed.
What exactly have you seen anywhere that says that any of Honda's new engines will be "amazing"?
The ED engines are basically existing block designs with new direct injection heads. SOHC or intake on VTEC only. Only one engine has been advertised as having VTEC on both cams, but from the press release docs and reports, even that engine is still focused on fuel economy. Hell, the new family name is "Earth Dreams", not Excellent Dyno, or Evocative Dynamics, or whatever. BTW, sidebar, why did they choose a name that not only evokes male sexual disfunction in the US, but also has the same initials as BMWs already released "Efficient Dynamics"? Talk about throwing good money after bad in the marketing game.
Are we supposed to be amazed with 310 hp from 3.5 liters? 210 hp from 2.4 liters? Haven't we already been here? You know, almost 10 years ago Honda engineers brought out an factory modified Accord with a modified J30 that put out 300 hp.
Honda has surrendered in the performance game. Quit, given up, thrown in the towel. 10-15 years ago, a DOHC VTEC engine was a viable alternative to a turbo engine. Sure, you didn't have the torque, but you had similar specific power output, immediate throttle response, an awesome sound and a lot of fun to drive. And you didn't have to worry about the kind of failures you saw on turbo engines.
So, if Honda's not going to follow the rest of the industry into small displacement, direct injection turbos, where's their equivalent technology push on the NA side of things? Either they need to up specific output, install bigger engines (with more power), or lower their weight substantially below the competition. Since they've abandoned high revs, DOHC VTEC, no advanced VTEC, etc. the whole idea of higher specific outputs is out the door. And for the same reason their bigger engines are basically on par with those from other makes. That leaves dramatic weight reduction, which I also don't see. They might save 5%, but that isn't going to save them against all the mighty-mite turbo engines out there producing 120-150 hp/liter and commensurate torque while returning top of class EPA fuel economy. And a close-coupled catalyst, no exhaust VTEC 7000 rpm engine isn't going to offer the kind of driving experience that makes people willing to sacrifice a little power and a lot of torque to stay NA/Honda.
SC
P54 wrote: What we see now is a transition period while we wait on the new vehicles to come out. You will be amazed.
Who told you that the ED engines presented is all that Honda has for future. Yes, the "Earth Dream" sounds silly in many languages, however we have to give them the benefit of doubt as it might sound good i Japanese. Maybe they used Google translator? ED could also stand for "exceptional durability". Or "experimental design/development." I guess they could have researched more what that means in other languages. Since they have the slogan "Blue sky for our children" they could have called it "Blue sky" engines ("BS" engines for short, that would be more telling in other languages too and indicate it will operate on "natural gas").
You talk about 10 years ago, well 12 years ago Honda brought a 9K rpm, 120HP per liter engine. This little jewel of an engine really fired up the "whiners" and it did not take long before Honda had to up the cc and lower the rpm to please the enthusiasts. Hard to please the enthusiasts, eh?
The new engines will be more FE, have more torque and HP while presenting the power at a broader range. The engines are made for Honda main stream cars.
Now, did Honda tell you about new enthusiast cars? With "Whiiiiner" engines for enthusiasts. You have seen nothing yet, not just drive-train wise but the whole vehicle. You said yourself "Open your eyes." Open them wider and like I said you will be amazed at what is coming. The coming "earth quake" from Honda. With a "tsunami" of enthusiasts following.
BTW, where did you see " top of class EPA fuel economy" in competitors turbo engines? I mean in the real world, not at constant HWY speed. If you want the power from a turbo engine you are also going to pay the penalty in FE. Air do not produce power, you need fuel.
Who told you Honda have quit, given up, surrendered or thrown in the towel? Like I said, you will be amazed. Open your eyes wider, you have seen nothing yet.
What exactly have you seen anywhere that says that any of Honda's new engines will be "amazing"?
The ED engines are basically existing block designs with new direct injection heads. SOHC or intake on VTEC only. Only one engine has been advertised as having VTEC on both cams, but from the press release docs and reports, even that engine is still focused on fuel economy. Hell, the new family name is "Earth Dreams", not Excellent Dyno, or Evocative Dynamics, or whatever. BTW, sidebar, why did they choose a name that not only evokes male sexual disfunction in the US, but also has the same initials as BMWs already released "Efficient Dynamics"? Talk about throwing good money after bad in the marketing game.
Are we supposed to be amazed with 310 hp from 3.5 liters? 210 hp from 2.4 liters? Haven't we already been here? You know, almost 10 years ago Honda engineers brought out an factory modified Accord with a modified J30 that put out 300 hp.
Honda has surrendered in the performance game. Quit, given up, thrown in the towel. 10-15 years ago, a DOHC VTEC engine was a viable alternative to a turbo engine. Sure, you didn't have the torque, but you had similar specific power output, immediate throttle response, an awesome sound and a lot of fun to drive. And you didn't have to worry about the kind of failures you saw on turbo engines.
So, if Honda's not going to follow the rest of the industry into small displacement, direct injection turbos, where's their equivalent technology push on the NA side of things? Either they need to up specific output, install bigger engines (with more power), or lower their weight substantially below the competition. Since they've abandoned high revs, DOHC VTEC, no advanced VTEC, etc. the whole idea of higher specific outputs is out the door. And for the same reason their bigger engines are basically on par with those from other makes. That leaves dramatic weight reduction, which I also don't see. They might save 5%, but that isn't going to save them against all the mighty-mite turbo engines out there producing 120-150 hp/liter and commensurate torque while returning top of class EPA fuel economy. And a close-coupled catalyst, no exhaust VTEC 7000 rpm engine isn't going to offer the kind of driving experience that makes people willing to sacrifice a little power and a lot of torque to stay NA/Honda.
SC
P54 wrote: What we see now is a transition period while we wait on the new vehicles to come out. You will be amazed.
Who told you that the ED engines presented is all that Honda has for future. Yes, the "Earth Dream" sounds silly in many languages, however we have to give them the benefit of doubt as it might sound good i Japanese. Maybe they used Google translator? ED could also stand for "exceptional durability". Or "experimental design/development." I guess they could have researched more what that means in other languages. Since they have the slogan "Blue sky for our children" they could have called it "Blue sky" engines ("BS" engines for short, that would be more telling in other languages too and indicate it will operate on "natural gas").
You talk about 10 years ago, well 12 years ago Honda brought a 9K rpm, 120HP per liter engine. This little jewel of an engine really fired up the "whiners" and it did not take long before Honda had to up the cc and lower the rpm to please the enthusiasts. Hard to please the enthusiasts, eh?
The new engines will be more FE, have more torque and HP while presenting the power at a broader range. The engines are made for Honda main stream cars.
Now, did Honda tell you about new enthusiast cars? With "Whiiiiner" engines for enthusiasts. You have seen nothing yet, not just drive-train wise but the whole vehicle. You said yourself "Open your eyes." Open them wider and like I said you will be amazed at what is coming. The coming "earth quake" from Honda. With a "tsunami" of enthusiasts following.
BTW, where did you see " top of class EPA fuel economy" in competitors turbo engines? I mean in the real world, not at constant HWY speed. If you want the power from a turbo engine you are also going to pay the penalty in FE. Air do not produce power, you need fuel.
Who told you Honda have quit, given up, surrendered or thrown in the towel? Like I said, you will be amazed. Open your eyes wider, you have seen nothing yet.
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
.jpg)
