Honda 4cyl Engines

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Slacker
I have owned two of these engines you put up against Honda. The 1.6L in a 1981 Escort. This was the engine that turned me into a shade tree mechanic. The most troublesome, worked on car I have ever had! The other a 2.3L in a 1981 Mercury Capri. This slug of a car wouldn't fall out of a tree and had to be rebuilt before it reached 100,000 miles. All of the Honda cars I've owned have been ultra reliable and, quick for what they are. My current work car is a 1990 Integra. It has 245,000 miles and has never had any kind of engine work, only routine maintenance. When comparing apples to apples, there is no comparison.


I had both - a 2.3 in an 86 Mustang. Yes, it was gutless but it was tough as iron. The problem with the 2.3/2.5 was it was a boat anchor - 100% cast iron. Great for longevity but it was heavy. At 175k the body gave way but the engine was solid.

The 1.9 was in an Escort and it needed the usuals - timing belts and water pumps. The thing with the CVH was never to overheat them.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: Brenden
Originally Posted By: Win

When did Honda finally fuel inject an engine? 2000? Honda may make OK engines now, but they were low grade junk once, and to say that the domestics have only just now made good four pots is ridiculous.


Actually the first Honda/Acura PGM-FI car was the 1984 Accord, far before 2000.

IIRC the first Honda Accord with PGM-FI was the 1986 Accord LXi, I bought that car Fall 1985. The first Acura with PGM-FI was 1984 Legend (and/or Integra). Honda got fuel injected engine late because they didn't want to pay royalty to Bosch, and they didn't use the moniker EFI.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My wife and I just returned from an 800 mile trip in our CR-V to Virginia and the mountains of North Carolina celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary.

... snip...
And it STILL returned 27.2 mpg on the entire trip.

From an AWD SUV.


That's really not good at all.... We did a Cental PA to Florida trip this summer through the same things - down 81 and across NC and SC and back to 95 in GA.

4,500 lb AWD sedan with a 365hp twin turbo V6 that barely downshifted from 6th gear going up and down the hills, AC blasting the whole way and I got between 24-26 MPG. No drama just good old cruising. The only thing that sucks is city mileage but that's 19-22.

It goes to what I've said for a while - run a small overloaded engine hard and it will use the same gas as a big engine just loafing around.

 

[buster]

As far as 4 cyl engines go

Japan > U.S.

No contest.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
That's really not good at all.... We did a Cental PA to Florida trip this summer through the same things - down 81 and across NC and SC and back to 95 in GA.

4,500 lb AWD sedan with a 365hp twin turbo V6 that barely downshifted from 6th gear going up and down the hills, AC blasting the whole way and I got between 24-26 MPG. No drama just good old cruising. The only thing that sucks is city mileage but that's 19-22.

It goes to what I've said for a while - run a small overloaded engine hard and it will use the same gas as a big engine just loafing around.


Actually, what that demonstrates is the effect of aerodynamics on fuel economy at speed. You got 24-26 mpg in a *sedan*. That's a much different story than an SUV. I used to get 30+ mpg on the highway from our '97 Cadillac with a 275 hp V-8 engine. But it's an apples-to-oranges comparison because you're talking about a sedan vs. an SUV, both with very different aerodynamic profiles.

You get on the highway with your sedan what I get in the city with our CR-V. You could say that's bad for your sedan, but it's still not a valid comparison because you're dealing with a 300+ hp V-6 and I'm dealing with a 166 hp I-4, so of course mine has the advantage for economy in that setting. Likewise on the road, you're dealing with a slippery sedan and I'm dealing with an ovoid SUV, so of course yours has the advantage of economy in *that* setting.

I maintain what I said earlier: 27 mpg through the mountains in a vehicle that can carry as much volume/cargo as this SUV can is darn good. And despite being in the mountains, I still bested the EPA estimate of 26 mpg.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
.... Honda got fuel injected engine late because they didn't want to pay royalty to Bosch, and they didn't use the moniker EFI .....


A WAG, that to me is more plausible, is that they had stuck with the dead end CVCC design too long, and were simply behind everyone else.

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My wife and I just returned from an 800 mile trip in our CR-V to Virginia and the mountains of North Carolina celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary.

... snip...
And it STILL returned 27.2 mpg on the entire trip.

From an AWD SUV.


That's really not good at all.... We did a Cental PA to Florida trip this summer through the same things - down 81 and across NC and SC and back to 95 in GA.

4,500 lb AWD sedan with a 365hp twin turbo V6 that barely downshifted from 6th gear going up and down the hills, AC blasting the whole way and I got between 24-26 MPG. No drama just good old cruising. The only thing that sucks is city mileage but that's 19-22.

It goes to what I've said for a while - run a small overloaded engine hard and it will use the same gas as a big engine just loafing around.


Interestingly I would expect far more from a modern sedan with better aerodynamics. My slightly heavier and less aerodynamic 2007 Acura MDX(300HP 3.7 v6/5speed auto) achieved 24MPG at 75MPH loaded up to Montreal and back to coastal NH including climbing the Green Mountains in VT. This was 4 adults, two small kids and AC front/rear on full tilt.

You are correct at certain loads an easier working relatively powerful v6 does better than a harder working 4 cylinder. That all being said my Acura seems to only get about 19-20MPG overall in mixed driving.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
My wife and I just returned from an 800 mile trip in our CR-V to Virginia and the mountains of North Carolina celebrating our 10th wedding anniversary.

... snip...
And it STILL returned 27.2 mpg on the entire trip.

From an AWD SUV.


That's really not good at all.... We did a Cental PA to Florida trip this summer through the same things - down 81 and across NC and SC and back to 95 in GA.

4,500 lb AWD sedan with a 365hp twin turbo V6 that barely downshifted from 6th gear going up and down the hills, AC blasting the whole way and I got between 24-26 MPG. No drama just good old cruising. The only thing that sucks is city mileage but that's 19-22.

It goes to what I've said for a while - run a small overloaded engine hard and it will use the same gas as a big engine just loafing around.


Interestingly I would expect far more from a modern sedan with better aerodynamics. My slightly heavier and less aerodynamic 2007 Acura MDX(300HP 3.7 v6/5speed auto) achieved 24MPG at 75MPH loaded up to Montreal and back to coastal NH including climbing the Green Mountains in VT.


Come on dude, your MDX is pretty aerodynamic and weighs a whopping 41lbs more if his 4,500lb figure is accurate (I didn't check).

 

[rjundi]

Close color, its silver

I did not realize the curb weight was that low. Sure does not feel like it at times. First and last SUV.

Then again it is a V6 and aging designed one not 4cylinder so way OT.

 

[cutter]

Originally Posted By: itguy08

It goes to what I've said for a while - run a small overloaded engine hard and it will use the same gas as a big engine just loafing around.


I'd imagine if I were to cruise at 55mph in 4th gear (out of 6), i'd use the same amount of gas in a big engine that's loafing around. Yes.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL
Come on dude, your MDX is pretty aerodynamic and weighs a whopping 41lbs more if his 4,500lb figure is accurate (I didn't check).


The drag coefficient of that MDX is 0.30. I don't know what the other sedan in question is, but I'll guess based on parameters listed that it's a new Taurus SHO. The drag coefficient of the Taurus SHO is 0.32. To my understanding, you need to multiply the drag coefficient to the frontal area to arrive at the drag area for the vehicle. The frontal area of an SUV will typically be larger than the frontal area of a sedan. Without knowing the frontal area of either vehicle, I cannot make an assessment of the "aerodynamic burden" of either vehicle.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Close color, its silver

I did not realize the curb weight was that low. Sure does not feel like it at times. First and last SUV.

Then again it is a V6 and aging designed one not 4cylinder so way OT.


Crazy eh? LOL

 

[antiqueshell]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

IIRC the first Honda Accord with PGM-FI was the 1986 Accord LXi, I bought that car Fall 1985. The first Acura with PGM-FI was 1984 Legend (and/or Integra). Honda got fuel injected engine late because they didn't want to pay royalty to Bosch, and they didn't use the moniker EFI.


Actually the first FI engine they had in the USA was in the previous generation, I think it was the SE-i, from1985, on a 4 cylinder engine. I remember because I worked at a Honda dealer at that time and it was a big deal for them to finally have FI.

 

[HTSS_TR]

You're probably correct, it had been almost 30 years. I only remember that 1986 Accord LXi was so hot at that time, Honda dealer in Rochester, Minnesota want $4-5k above MSRP and some people paid that asking price, while LX and DX sold for about $500-1000 above MSRP.