What makes Honda 4 cylinder engines great?

[surfstar]

I like that I'm getting 40+ mpg with my 2000 Civic HX, but its also a 1.7L with no pickup at all below 3k (the HX is also geared tall, so it feels even slower than other models). I used to get 32-34 mpg with my '93 2.0L Mazda and that felt torque-y compared to this.
Heck my 2.2L Vue feels torque-y now and that thing is dirt slow. So, besides high mpg, I've found that my 4cyl Honda engine is helpful in making OTHER engines feel faster down low. I bought it for reliable + mpg, though, so I got what I expected.

 

[A_A_G]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
2000 Honda S2000 normally aspirated 2.0L engine generates 240Hp for 120HP/L and rev to 9000 RPM.

12 years later no normally aspirated 4-cyl can do more than 110HP/L or rev more than 8000 RPM.


And it makes a lousy 153 lb/tq

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: itguy08
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
2000 Honda S2000 normally aspirated 2.0L engine generates 240Hp for 120HP/L and rev to 9000 RPM.

12 years later no normally aspirated 4-cyl can do more than 110HP/L or rev more than 8000 RPM.


Call me not impressed. It was widely reported you had to beat the snot out of the S2000 to get any power out of it. Looking at dyno curves it was pretty gutless below 3k RPM. Not what I would want as a daily driver.

I'd rather have an engine like my Ecoboost 3.5 with gobs of power just about everywhere and that really doesn't need to spin up in daily driving. But flog it and it will go. I guess it's bad it only revs to 6k RPM.

I think that's the allure of turbo 4s. You can get power that is comparable to a 6 and a flat torque band which makes everyone happy.


Oh, but it is fun.

My Integra GS-R was not as terribly torque challenged as it is made out to be. At low rpm, on the long intake runners and small cam lobes, it was about the same as any other 1.8 whether it be a 1st gen base model Eclipse/Laser or the current model of Civic's R18. But you put your foot into it and you'll hear the buzz of the switch to short intake runners followed shortly by the changeover to the high lift/long duration cam lobes. The engine gets louder. Deeper toned. Serious. It's pulling pretty darn hard for a 1.8 of any sort by then. You are a 10th of a tick quicker to 60 than a turbo Sunbird and just hammering other 4 cylinders under 2 liters.

I sold my Integra GS-R with 200,000 miles on it. The harmonic balancer was showing signs of it's imminent demise and I had to replace the radiator at about 170,000 miles. But that's all really. That was the extent of it's mechanical problems. It saw 8000 rpm virtually everyday.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Spazdog
My Integra GS-R was not as terribly torque challenged as it is made out to be. At low rpm, on the long intake runners and small cam lobes, it was about the same as any other 1.8 whether it be a 1st gen base model Eclipse/Laser or the current model of Civic's R18. But you put your foot into it and you'll hear the buzz of the switch to short intake runners followed shortly by the changeover to the high lift/long duration cam lobes. The engine gets louder. Deeper toned. Serious. It's pulling pretty darn hard for a 1.8 of any sort by then.


This is obviously the point of the cam lobe-switching VTEC, and is the key to making an 8,000 rpm inline-4 also very driveable around town at 2,000 rpm. Using conventional valvetrain technology, this is extremely hard to do, if not impossible. But not with cam lobe-switching technology. GM has now come out with their own version of a cam lobe-switching valvetrain, and I expect many people who wouldn't otherwise experience it to begin to appreciate what it brings to an engine.

I used to be a hard core V-8 person. Only the low-toned rumble for me, thank you. But in the cars that I prefer to drive (family vehicles), V-8s are low-revving and not all that "energizing" to drive. A revvy inline-4 is more entertaining for me to drive than a V-8 that idles around all day. I wish our CR-V had the 7,000 rpm K24 instead of the low-speed K24Z1 that it has. The fun stops at about 6,500 rpm and I wish it didn't.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
I recall spending $13k on my lightly used 95 Honda EX Coupe. It delivered 40mpg throughout its life from 5k-250k miles/9 years. It never had engine opened for ANYTHING except timing belt change/valve adjustment at 100k miles. The transmission manual was trouble free.

You could not get a lower cost per mile vehicle.

It was sold as I just got bored and it grew more uncomfortable(seat padding) and the coupe form was brutal from day one. Also body creaks likely from worn struts(original!).

The VTEC engine was nice when revved too since this is about engines.

This is a typical comment from Civic owners. But, not everyone feels the same way. This is similar to how I felt about any Honda I have owned. I drove all of my Honda's for a really long time(15-18 yrs & 200K-300K), I had very few repairs and they cost me very little to own over the years. Their upfront cost to buy the car is what cost the most. The ownership cost and downtime was always low for me.

Most people coming out of domestic V engines usually didn't like 4 cyl Honda's or any other 4's either. But, this is what I was used to so, I can compare many 4's to Honda 4's. Don't get me wrong! I like other mfgs 4's too. Honda was always the benchmark that I used for comparison.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Char Baby
Originally Posted By: rjundi
I recall spending $13k on my lightly used 95 Honda EX Coupe. It delivered 40mpg throughout its life from 5k-250k miles/9 years. It never had engine opened for ANYTHING except timing belt change/valve adjustment at 100k miles. The transmission manual was trouble free.

You could not get a lower cost per mile vehicle.

It was sold as I just got bored and it grew more uncomfortable(seat padding) and the coupe form was brutal from day one. Also body creaks likely from worn struts(original!).

The VTEC engine was nice when revved too since this is about engines.

This is a typical comment from Civic owners. But, not everyone feels the same way. This is similar to how I felt about any Honda I have owned. I drove all of my Honda's for a really long time(15-18 yrs & 200K-300K), I had very few repairs and they cost me very little to own over the years. Their upfront cost to buy the car is what cost the most. The ownership cost and downtime was always low for me.

Most people coming out of domestic V engines usually didn't like 4 cyl Honda's or any other 4's either. But, this is what I was used to so, I can compare many 4's to Honda 4's. Don't get me wrong! I like other mfgs 4's too. Honda was always the benchmark that I used for comparison.


The EJ1's (5th gen EX coupe) was a little more natural reach to the shifter than the EH9 (5th gen sedan). I always had to reach down a little further than I liked in my sedan. Even with the Hurst shifter.
The EX sedan was as good/better in every other way. All EH9s had 4 wheel discs (not all EJ1s do) and the minor additional weight was well worth it to have an accessible back seat.
I never thought the seats were uncomfortable. Just ugly with that one sided headrest

 

[heynow]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2

Actually, the opposite [concerning simplification]. Japanese car Mfrs use a lot more parts to affect the same outcome as others.
Metals are good, but are can't take being overstressed by load or torque.
Older Honda engines burned oil and clogged the cats.


Examples?

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Christopher Hussey
Originally Posted By: mechtech2

Actually, the opposite [concerning simplification]. Japanese car Mfrs use a lot more parts to affect the same outcome as others.
Metals are good, but are can't take being overstressed by load or torque.
Older Honda engines burned oil and clogged the cats.


Examples?


Early CVCCs may have burned oil, but because the plug was in it's own pre-combustion chamber they didn't foul the spark plugs.
Unless somehow an early Honda CVCC slipped through without the additional metal collar on the auxilliary valve, any oil burning was contained to the combustion chamber and the plug was protected from that.

And I guarantee that no 1st gen Civic CVCC or Accord clogged their catalysts.

 

[CharBaby]

Honda engines were also very well known in the industry for, meeting the EPA Regulations years before the regulation went into effect.

I believe that today, Honda is moving a little bit further away from those(rev to the extreme) engines, and they are now building engines that the owners actually like and can use daily...A little more torque down low, a little less power up high.

Typical Honda owners have changed too as you can see where Honda has been heading from generation to generation in design/function. Honda is still trying to keep the typical owner while attracting new buyers. And they're always trying to build that "happy medium" vehicle

 

[Spazdog]

So, Honda is trying to be Oldsmobile from '95-'00?

Not a top tier luxury car, no entry level cars, an SUV, and a van.

Little more torque down low - little less power up high. (No "442" 190hp Quad 4 models) Smaller Northstar and "Shortstar" engines on the Aurora.

You also had the Ninety Eight which scared off the oldsters with garish green VFD instrument clusters and 108 buttons....come to think of it, 108 buttons does sound like a lot of recent Honda/Acura vehicles.

 

[CharBaby]

Hmmm! Ya know, it kinda sounds like that now doesn't it?

I wasn't really going in that direction when describing where I think Honda is heading. I don't think that Honda has Olds(R.I.P) in mind either in their direction.

The new Civic isn't at the top of it's catigory that way Civic's used to be.

The Odyssey may be at the top or near the top of it's catigory but, the caitgory's cast has gone down just a bit in quantity and these newer models(it's said) aren't as good as the models they're replacing.

Same for the Pilot

And the new '13 Accord...Well, we'll see I guess!

The FIT is at the top of it's catigory but, it won't take much to knock it off.

The CR-Z...Hmmm!

I have always expected alot from Honda and these days, other MFG's are catching my interest. I always felt smart when I bought my Honda's but today, I'd feel foolish if I don't consider other makes/models...Which I have been!

 

[BrianWC]

People have been talking about knocking the Fit off its perch for years but none have done it yet. It's consistently beat a raft of new competitors. All this goes to show how horrible sub compacts really are...

I think my 2002 CR-V exemplifies the quality of Honda 4 cyls. You had the very first k motor, the k24a1, in its first year. 10+ years later mine's doing fine. No warped this or that or faulty gaskets that got fixed 5 years down the road.

It's so weird to pop the hood of my new Si and see practically the exact, same engine (k24z7)as I've been staring at for 10 years. It's also very comforting.

 

[NJC]

Originally Posted By: Scott_Tucker
Honda was one of the first manufacturers to use selective fits.

This is where parts are divided into groups based on dimensional tolerances. For example, if a crank journal is supposed to be 2.000" +/- .001" then they might be divided into three groups - 1.999", 2.000", and 2.001".

Yes, right you are. I recently mentioned this in another post on this forum, but my 1984 Accord shop manual has the tolerance blocks you describe - grouped in A, B, C (and maybe D). But the tolerances were much tighter than .001" (25.4µm), but rather 6µm if I recall correctly.

 

[Scott_Tucker]

Yes, you can order crank and rod bearings by 'color' because they are marked with paint on the side of the bearing.

 

[NJC]

Originally Posted By: Tzu
I've been reading for awhile now about how durable and efficient Honda 4 cylinders are. I have a 1991 Camry DX with the 3sfe and it has been very reliable with 274,000 miles,

A family member also has a Camry of that vintage with 3S-FE engine @ 445,000km's or 276K miles. And despite having a hearty oil leak, seems to run very well.

Originally Posted By: Tzu
whenever I see one and it looks well taken care of, I wonder just how many miles they have on them and what kind of MPG's they are probally getting.

Hondabeat's high mileage stories are consistently impressive:

http://www.hondabeat.com/highmiles.php

I've had 3 Accords (1984, 1988 and now 1993), and all have had excellent engines - the 1993 I currently have is @ 390k km's and is doing well. The 4th gen Accords were well made and engineered, although I suspect will be a rarity in heavily salted areas.

 

[L_Sludger]

Originally Posted By: Tzu
I've been reading for awhile now about how durable and efficient Honda 4 cylinders are. I have a 1991 Camry DX with the 3sfe and it has been very reliable with 274,000 miles, but does start using oil as that fill goes on, almost 1.5- 2 qts. per 5,000 miles (PYB 10w30 most of it's life). I've never owned any Honda cars before, but whenever I see one and it looks well taken care of, I wonder just how many miles they have on them and what kind of MPG's they are probally getting. I guess I'm just curious to what is the engineering difference between a Honda 4cyl. and a GM Ecotec 4 cyl. vs a Toyota 4cyl? Maybe a Honda in the driveway in the future....? Not sure yet. Thanks guys.

I have a Honda Insight with a 3-cylinder engine, about as many miles as your car. About 1qt oil consumption per 5000 miles. Not stellar. But it is still economical and gets between 60 and 75mpg, depending on how I drive it and the conditions. If I really try and the conditions are right, I'll get 85mpg on a road trip.

 

[Dakota1820]

i really like my dohc 1.9 my buddy has a 97 civic it is absolutely boring and sounds like a sewing machine. its quiet but it has no life it doesn't make you want to drive it.

 

[SLCraig]

Originally Posted By: chevyboy14
i really like my dohc 1.9 my buddy has a 97 civic it is absolutely boring and sounds like a sewing machine. its quiet but it has no life it doesn't make you want to drive it.


Unless you get a good VTEC Honda engine, I agree the Saturn 1.9 DOHC is more fun. I loved beating on mine, that engine loved to rev and sounded great at WOT.

 

[CharBaby]

Originally Posted By: Tzu

I've been reading for awhile now about how durable and efficient Honda 4 cylinders are. I have a 1991 Camry DX with the 3sfe and it has been very reliable with 274,000 miles,
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Again, very true! Nothing wrong with that engine or many other engines for that matter. I just think that Honda engines were(WERE) the engineers engine.

Many MFG's had a good engine or two in their lineup. All of Honda's engines were once at the top of the pack in many catigories. Especially when it came to EPA & MPG and they still made quite good power for their displacement(in their class). Many 4 bangers were either low on power to get good MPG and others that made good power didn't get good MPG but were screamers. And others still, had difficulties meeting EPA emissions and were gutless and got poor MPG.

Honda(less so today) gave the best of all worlds(better than the competition) in those catigories. They made the largest splash in the pool compared to their direct competition and they made quite a good car to go along with that wonderful drivetrain(especially manual trannys and suspension setup).

A person would have had to drive the competition side-by-side in order to see how well Honda sweat the details. Not only in their drivetrain but the rest of the car too. Fit & finish, user friendliness, solid construction, smooth controls(Honda Easy), driving position, pedal placement, 360 deg outward vision, Cd(aerodynamics) and the list goes on and on!

Not only were Honda drivetrains the benchmark of the industry, so was the rest of the car(s). Many terms by the PRESS came from Honda automobiles such as "Honda Easy", "teffelon coated feeling", "feels and drives like it cost thousands more"

Today it's a different story. There are more and more really good vehicles to choose from, making Honda "not the only game in town". I've even moved away from Honda because I don't want to missout on other MFGs good offerings.

 

[bustednutz]

Every Honda I've ever owned has been up to the task and punishment that was asked of it. NEVER had a major issue with any of them thru the years.

I also love my Mazdas now too. They've come a long way and are completely made in Japan. In the past 6 years we've had them and are now on our 3rd.

As for the Toyota line, I find them to be excellent as well. My mom has 100k trouble free miles on her Lexus ES300 and loves the car. I've never owned one, but of the ones I've driven they too are excellent vehicles.

Not trying to sound biased, but once I went to a Japanese vehicle, I never went back to American. After driving Japanese cars, the american ones just seem "loose" and sloppily put together. Almost Clunky and chunky in their engineering design.

Not that there aren't dependable American cars, thats not what I'm saying. My preference is just for japanese ones right now.
I've also had my share of German cars too. If you like to tinker....those are for you. They should keep you plenty busy.