Honda Counting on Engine Efficiency

[rszappa1]

My 2007 Honda Accord is the best car that I have owned and I have owned two Dodges...two Chryslers...a Ford...and a Plymouth....since 1972

 

[ThirdeYe]

I love my little Honda, even if it is disguised behind some Acura calipers. That's what matters to me

 

[c502cid]

Currently my brand loyalty is non existent. In my stable is a Ford, Chevy, Toyota and Dodge. While 3 out of 4 of my Honda's were bought used, all had engine issues. Not in turn the key and start issues, but all leaked and burned oil. I don't think their rep for being an "engine" company is deserved, not in my experience. Key words, in my experience.

 

[tangojetta]

Honda never invents anything new, they just make things better, take for example VTEC, It was the Italians that invented it. Honda perfected it.

 

[OVERKILL]

 Originally Posted By: tangojetta

Honda never invents anything new, they just make things better, take for example VTEC, It was the Italians that invented it. Honda perfected it.

Actually, the Brits invented it if you want to go WAY back. The first use of variable valve timing was on steam engines.

 

[Cardinal49]

Japanese manufacturers have been very successful in improving things and producing excellent products with businness success. In addition to cars, Japanese companies produce some of the finest watches, musical instruments, photography equipment and electronics. Also, for hundreds of years they have been making some of the finest steel blades (swords & knives.)

 

[mstrjon32]

 Originally Posted By: tangojetta

Honda never invents anything new, they just make things better, take for example VTEC, It was the Italians that invented it. Honda perfected it.

I don't think the Italians would agree.

 

[Junior]

 Originally Posted By: mstrjon32

 Originally Posted By: tangojetta

Honda never invents anything new, they just make things better, take for example VTEC, It was the Italians that invented it. Honda perfected it.

I don't think the Italians would agree.

Modern common fuel rail systems tell a different story. After research and development by the Fiat Group the design was acquired by the German company Robert Bosch GmbH for completion of development and refinement for mass-production. In hindsight the sale appeared to be a tactical error for Fiat as the new technology proved to be highly profitable.

 

[steve20]

I bought my last Honda BECAUSE of the engine-K24 can't beat it for power vs fuel economy--yesterday's trip to Buffalo gave 33.6 mpg on the way up, and 37.0 on the way down -not bad for 75 mph cruising with the AC on Steve

 

[pitzel]

 Originally Posted By: Win

A commentary in the current (June 2009) Ward's Autoworld, "Piston Engines Not Done Yet" opined that massive gains are still to be had in fuel efficiency from piston engines, maybe as much as 70% in the next decade. The author lamented that there was so much emphasis on hybrid technology when piston engine technology is so much less costly.

Easily. Just incrementally adding direct injection pushes up fuel efficiency by 10-15%. Turbochargers are good for another 10-15%. Throw in a direct shifting transaxle, electric power steering pump, and downsize the engine appropriately, and you're already in 50mpg territory for a mid-sized sedan (ie: Honda Accord, Pontiac G6, etc.) that currently get 32-35mpg. And there are further opportunities available in heat recovery as well, as well as active suspensions that can recover energy instead of dissipating it as heat in damper elements (aka 'shock absorbers'). Plus there's likely very good operational gains to be made with air-free tyres. Improper tyre inflation, or severe temperature gradients cause substantial losses in overall fleet efficiency. ie: http://www.gizmag.com/pictures/gallery/3603_31080614917.jpg

 Quote:

The lead editorial, "Yes We Can, Maybe" opined that the fearless leaders fuel economy mandates will add as much as $5-12K USD to the cost of an automobile, not the $1300 number that everyone is being scammed with.

The investment up-front will be higher, but the rate of return will be great on some of the technology. I expect, in the next 10-20 years, that night vision systems and radar will also be mandated in cars driven at night, as a safety feature, similar to how airbags and seatbelts were mandated. The up-front cost of these will be significant, but the payoff, over time, will be great. Bottom line: expect to pay a lot more for a car in the future, but expect it to come with a lot more functionality. Steering wheels and foot pedals could also dissappear as well in new models.

 

[BrianWC]

Night vision/radar would be a great addition. I know when I hit a deer, it only appeared in my lights maybe .5 seconds before the hit. Good thing the SAAB just rolled right over it. All in all, increased standards will be a double-edged sword. Yes, the costs will be more but look at the benefits. It was a slow climb up from the emissions/insurance/fuel economy-mandated wasteland of the mid-late 70's. But look what cars we got 25 years later. I can't imagaine it will take as long this tie to overcome the hurdles. Still, why does it seem that each time we go through this, it's at the worst financial time possible?

 

[M1Accord]

 Originally Posted By: 440Magnum

Very interesting. I've always felt like Honda is the Japanese Chrysler. Superb engine design... hit-and-miss execution. If either one could ever bring the cars they produce up to the same standards as their engines, they'd be a force to contend with. As it is, they're always 2nd or 3rd fiddle behind GM and Ford or Toyota and Nissan.

Just because you smoke crack does not give you a right to be stupid.

 

[M1Accord]

 Originally Posted By: PT1

 Originally Posted By: Win

The lead editorial, "Yes We Can, Maybe" opined that the fearless leaders fuel economy mandates will add as much as $5-12K USD to the cost of an automobile, not the $1300 number that everyone is being scammed with.

This is 100% true. People in the US will wake up one morning and realize what they have voted for. The average car will cost at least $5,000.00 more and require another 30% maintenance costs. The average truck/suv will be $8-10k more. Then add in the expense of cap & trade and the cost to operte a vehicle will increase by 25%. The lower 20% of wage earners will be using public transportation. I hope they enjoy it.

Are you telling me that if I trade in my tried and true Corolla and get that $3000 rebate, I am still $2000 short on top of the rip-off price of a new vehicle since the dealership knows they got me scammed, thinking I am getting $3000 free? Well, I'll just keep my 1992 Corolla capable of getting 36 mpg and they can keep their untried vehicles with the price tag way out the reach of anyone with the brain or family to take care of.

 

[M1Accord]

 Originally Posted By: steve20

I bought my last Honda BECAUSE of the engine-K24 can't beat it for power vs fuel economy--yesterday's trip to Buffalo gave 33.6 mpg on the way up, and 37.0 on the way down -not bad for 75 mph cruising with the AC on Steve

What Honda is this? My 02 Accord doesn't do well in city and trips less than 40 miles. It averages only 23-26 mpg, which is about right under the new EPA formula. The original estimate was 21 city/28 highway. For long trip such as the one I took from VA to FL, I got 32 mpg overall. This is a V6 with K&N filter, which I believe decreases fuel economy. I also don't use the energy efficent Michellin when I bought new tires. I couldn't justify the extra $50/50% more in cost and I prefer the more aggressive tread pattern of other tires.

 

[BrianWC]

K-24 is the iVTEC 2.4l 4-cyl in the Accord, CR-V, and others.

 

[pitzel]

 Originally Posted By: BrianWC

Night vision/radar would be a great addition. I know when I hit a deer, it only appeared in my lights maybe .5 seconds before the hit. Good thing the SAAB just rolled right over it.

Wildlife collisions have cost me (and my insurers) >$10k in the past year. Mass-produce night vision/radar, and I'm sure that the cost of a system would be far lower than that. There's nothing wrong with a car costing more up-front, if it will cost less to operate (adjusted for the time value of money) in the future compared to the alternatives.

 Quote:

All in all, increased standards will be a double-edged sword. Yes, the costs will be more but look at the benefits. It was a slow climb up from the emissions/insurance/fuel economy-mandated wasteland of the mid-late 70's. But look what cars we got 25 years later. I can't imagaine it will take as long this tie to overcome the hurdles.

The cost of operating a car today, over its entire life cycle, has never been cheaper. Not only are the cars themselves dirt cheap, but they are so much safer and burn so much less fuel than older models that they could cost double or triple what they cost in the 1960s/1970s, and still would be a better deal overall (adjusted for inflation, of course). The more efficient engines will pay off over time as well. Oil is an increasingly scarce resource, and chances are, its going to be hard to import a lot of it in the future.

 Quote:

Still, why does it seem that each time we go through this, it's at the worst financial time possible?

This is exactly the time in which people need to be making investments in becoming more efficient and more productive, to reap the benefits of those investments in the future. Investments in energy efficiency in the 1970s lead to prosperity in the 80s and 90s. Investment in basic technology and science in the 50s and 60s, led to entire industries being created. Financial crises are the result of malinvestment, and innefficiency in an economy, falling productivity (ie: bankers really don't accomplish anything...), and depleted capital stock (ie: in the auto industry, R&D and innovation).

 

[Steve S]

 Originally Posted By: rszappa1

But I agree that the Hemi is still the king in drag racing....I get a kick out of the funny cars that have a ford or gm or toyota body and underneath....a HEMI....since the late 50s nothing better yet for top fuel or funny car....

The aluminum Hemis have little in common to the Chrysler, Desoto etc Hemis. Like a chevrolet bodies NASCAR has little in common with the Chevrolet we drive though the Fancy Vettes are exotic.

 

[Steve S]

 Originally Posted By: BrianWC

Night vision/radar would be a great addition. I know when I hit a deer, it only appeared in my lights maybe .5 seconds before the hit. Good thing the SAAB just rolled right over it. All in all, increased standards will be a double-edged sword. Yes, the costs will be more but look at the benefits. It was a slow climb up from the emissions/insurance/fuel economy-mandated wasteland of the mid-late 70's. But look what cars we got 25 years later. I can't imagaine it will take as long this tie to overcome the hurdles. Still, why does it seem that each time we go through this, it's at the worst financial time possible?

The deer seem to jump out in front of you. Other than luck nothing will help

 

[cousincletus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHXfV1p7KU8

 

[brianl703]

 Originally Posted By: Steve S

The deer seem to jump out in front of you. Other than luck nothing will help

I had a deer run into the side of my car--he didn't even get in front of it. Still did $1500 in damage.