Talk:List of Honda engines

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents


[edit] NPOV

Come on. This article sounds like a sales pitch for Honda. "superior oiling system" is just the start of it, and what I will use as an example. Superior to what? Where's the proof? Why would this ever be considered NPOV? I could see "different oiling system" or even "techologically advanced oiling system" and then text to back up the claim, but the entire article needs to be turned into NPOV. Wikipedia isn't selling anything; we don't recieve grants, so there is no reason our articles need to sound as if we are picking sides. --CTwikipedier 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Need to scrub off the POV gunk and expand to include the rest of Honda's engine line, such as motorcycle powerplants, the "GX" small equipment engines, and the HondaJet turbofan. GBill 01:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes

I moved the article from Honda Engines to the (style-conforming) List of Honda engines. I also changed the individual links to conform as Honda X engine instead of Honda Engine (X). --SFoskett 15:05, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Honda found a replacement for turbochargers in its VTEC engines. - I removed this because I don't see that VTEC is a replacement at all. VTEC will never be able to double your engine output whereas you would be able to, in the correct configuration, with a turbocharger. Triddle 17:21, 19 September 2005 (UTC)


The introductory line of the artcile is completely irrelevant. Please change. Use another engine page for a template -CW70.26.11.45 00:16, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually on 2nd look this article was written by a child. Needs to be brought up to a higher not "tuner-centric" standard.

Gaaaa...What gives? I'm editing...CW70.26.11.45 00:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

This list omits the three-cylinder sub-liter engine used in the Honda Insight hybrid. --BipolarBear 13:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Should there be another section on this page for hybrid engines that don't have normal codes? Such as the JNA1 or the ECA1? -- tqless 2:00, 04 July 2006

I removed some POV and added sections for motorcycle/ATV, power equipment and aircraft engines. Now just have to track down more info on these types of engines. GBill 02:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The myth of the efficient Honda VTEC debunked

I posted this on the S2000 discussion page. Go and try the site yourself: Its a gross misnomer to consider this car efficient purely in terms of hp/L. Considering the size of the engine, this car EATS gas in day to day use. Here are some numbers from the USEPA site [www.fueleconomy.gov]:

For comparison I have used the Mazda Miata, a car in the same class and the oft maligned muscle car, the Ford Mustang:

Car:
S2000; Miata; Mustang GT

Fuel Type:
Premium; Premium; Regular;

MPG (city):
20; 24; 17

MPG (hwy):
26; 30; 25

MPG (combined):
22; 27; 20

Regular Gasoline: $2.91 per gallon Premium Gasoline: $3.12 per gallon

(Using combined numbers)
Cost to Drive 25 Miles:
$3.55; $2.89; $3.64
Fuel to Drive 25 Miles:
1.14 gal; 0.93 gal; 1.25 gal

Hilarious. So the S2000 which is HALF the engine capacity of the Mustang uses about the same amount of gas as a 'inffecient' V8? That's 14.3 vs 14.5 cents a mile? Way to go Honda. Using that much gas you only can get 240 hp? Wow. Give me a Miata. CJ DUB 18:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Fuel Efficiency is not Fuel Economy. Fuel Efficiency is specifically *defined* as the power to displacement ratio, making the original F20C JDM engine in the Honda S2000 one of the most efficient engines in the world.

Uh no. What you are refering to is called "specific output". In terms of efficiency the V8 motor is superior. I mean, look its in a heavier car, and it gets about the same mileage as a 4-banger. Because there is little difference between Fuel Economy, this means that one engine is more efficient than the other. Like wow, 100hp+per litre. Who cares? Its what you do with that litre that's important, and the V8 uses it well. Also, the V8 makes 300 hp without breaking a sweat, without using premium. CJ DUB 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Do you have proof the BSFC of a Honda engine is greater than a modern V8? Please present it if so. All who read "The myth of the efficient Honda VTEC debunked" keep in mind that the entire argument is based on very flimsy EPA estimates. IJB TA 20:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's something to consider for the efficiency of VTEC. The Acura RL weighs 512 lbs more than a Mustang GT and makes the same amount of HP yet still manages to get better fuel mileage than the GT. Interesting when you consider that the weight of the car can have the largest impact on the fuel mileage of a vehicle. IJB TA 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Or consider the Acura TL and the Mustang V6, the TL makes 48 more HP and is 235 lbs heavier yet still manages to get better fuel mileage. How did you hope to "debunk" the reputation that Honda vehicles have as being fuel efficient just with some EPA estimates for one Honda vehicle? IJB TA 05:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

In the case of the S2000, it has more to do with gear ratios than anything else. This whole argument is silly. The S2000 could be geared for 35 mpg, but what would be the fun in that?

[edit] Relaibility? High POV and speculative based on anecdotal evidence

  • High POV and speculative based on anecdotal evidence. Show me some data. CJ DUB 18:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
    Honda and Acura have ranked well above industry average in the J.D. Power Vehicle Dependability Study since at least 2000 (the earliest year available on their website) [1] [2]. They also consistently do well in surveys by Consumer Reports and other consumer groups. Not anecdotal or speculative; Honda's reliability reputation is well-researched. — AKADriver ☎ 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Last I looked, J.D. Power was into data on initial/long-term quality of cars and badges, NOT engines and measuring how long they last in statute miles. Try again. By your logic Ford engines are just as good because Lincoln is consistently near the top of the list with Lexus. Anyway, Acura is near Ford in the recent rankings. Now what does that mean? Also you should know that consumer Reports does not record data on reliability, ever; only build, and fit-n-finish quality estimates. CJ DUB 22:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is true, Ford's engines are quite good. CR does record reliability data, actually. Their reviews are based on estimates, but the annual auto guide with all the little bubble sheets are based on reliability surveys sent in by readers. — AKADriver ☎ 01:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dude, that's not real data. They simply ask the person to speculate on whether they think their car will go the distance, looks well built.
No, they ask the person to speculate on whether their car had broken down in the past year, which they are better able to judge with some accuracy. Gzuckier 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Really? That must be how they got their great numbers before people have even owned a car for a year. Auto-magic? CJ DUB 16:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
CR is a big industry joke. Re: your comments about Ford and JD Power, I therefore submit that it is illogical to claim that Honda has superior engine reliability on this basis since the claim could be made by any manfuacturer with a brand at the top of the list. CJ DUB 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, that's kind of the meaning of the thing. Gzuckier 15:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
You missed the point: The J.D. list is about brands, not engines. And anyway, Honda is NOT at the top. So this POV nonsense should be removed from the page. CJ DUB 16:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • In any case, the article is POV and needs to be changed. See "NPOV" above. --CTwikipedier 02:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


The whole section under "Honda Engine Traits" should be removed. There is no question about it that it is very bias.

  • I know I read somewhere that the B or D series of engines were some of the most reliable (if not the most reliable) engines ever to enter production. I cant remember what the figure was based on though, maybe warranty claims. If I find the figure and it is from a credible source I'll provide a link. Until then maybe the wording in the traits section should be cleaned up a little, unless it already has been. IJB TA 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air intake speculation.

I removed this text:

"Honda engines breathe well. This is due to the good port design in the cylinder heads, and large valves. Some people claim that Honda engines could handle a lot more intake air if they were not impeded by the standard plastic intake system. Honda's intake manifolds are quite well designed, but the plastic intake system prior to the manifolds are designed for quietness and ease of manufacture. Replacing this convoluted intake pipe with a smooth metal tube, and replacing the air filter with a lower restriction one placed in the front bumper, outside of the engine bay for colder air, leads to good performance and efficiency gains. This concept of allowing the air to flow more freely is universal to most any engine.

There is another view point that the stock pipework for the air intake is very capable. Honda has added a small pipe onto the side of the intake pipe which allows the intake to "tune" itself to different RPMs and therefore a smoother hp curve is achieved using the stock configuration. If the small reservoir pipe is removed and a bung put in its place the power results on a dyno can be noticeably lower. The convoluted plastic intake pipe is good because the turbulence set up by the convolutions prevents the air hugging the inside of the pipe and causing unwanted negative effects. An externally mounted cone filter leading to the stock air intake pipe is the ultimate for all round performance.."

What on earth does a cold air intake have to do with a list of Honda engines? They certainly don't come from Honda with a cold air intake. Rampant speculation about the aspiration of Honda engines doesn't belong in a list of Honda engines. Joshua 19:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Dude, modifying an air intake is i agree, not really important to a Honda Engine discussion ~ but, just by putting a larger air intake onto a regular honda motor means you'll get maybe 2-3 power. and seeing as we're talking about engines that put out anywhere between 100-300hp, (nsx) the difference of 2-3 hp over 100hp = 2-3%, rather negligible.

Honda, as far as I know usually does use an air intake system that draws air from outside of the engine compartment where cool air is available. Also the new Civic Si does have an air intake system specifically designed as a cold air intake. I agree though that this information on a modification to the intake system does not belong in this article. IJB TA 19:48, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Engine codes are wrong.

In Japan, there are no Type R engines with the number B18C7, that is for Australia. All JDM type R motors are just tagged B18C. Same with B18C2, for the Australian VTi-R integra - which isn't on the list. It also misses the F22C which was introduced to the US market in 2003, giving 6% torque over the original F20C, and as of this year the F22C was introduced to Japan. The "J" series being in an HR-V is also fallacy, as I have an HR-V sitting in my driveway from 2000, that has a D16 in it with SOHC VTEC.

Some distinction needs to be made between the C32A motors and the C32B motors. The B is DOHC and has VTEC, it was in the 1997 - 2005 NSX with manual transmissions. The A motors were in the Legend and 3.2 TL (1996 - 1998)

[edit] More 3-cylinder engines

Given that Honda produces 660cc keicars for their domestic market, how can the 1.0L Insight engine be their smallest automotive engine?

Suggest adding the following 660cc 3-cylinder engines:

E07A 91-96 Beat JDM
E07Z 98-03 Life JDM
P07A 03-04 Life JDM

58.104.87.60 03:24, 11 January 2007 (UTC)