By on September 19, 2013

It is a sound that is familiar to anyone of my generation, the manic buzzsaw howl of a Honda 4-cylinder. Unfairly tarnished in the minds of the public by legions of single-cam D-Series breathing through a potmetal Pep Boys muffler, the Honda 4-cylinder produced a truly moving tune in its highest iterations, the twin cam VTEC B-Series models, as they growled their way to stratospheric redlines. That era is officially over.

As part of its online marketing campaign a teaser series released by Honda, a video has emerged showing the next generation Civic Type-R undergoing a shakedown at the Nurburgring. In a startling break from tradition, this Type-R will not be powered by a high strung naturally aspirated 4-cylinder. Instead, it will get its motivation from the ubiquitous two point oh tee powerplant that seems to pop up in everything from the Tiguan to the Taurus.

Honda appears to be going to great lengths to ensure that the newest Type-R is the top hot hatch in the segment, even going as far as to chase the nebulous Nurburgring lap time crown for bragging rights – something I can’t help but think the Honda of old would never condescend to. They would have been content to have made the most raw, engaging and brilliantly engineered car, with red Recaros and a redline north of 8000 RPM. But without a screaming engine and double wishbones, what does a Type-R have left to define itself by? Not a whole lot, I’d say. In a commodity car like the standard Civic, these things may not matter, but they sure do for an enthusiast product. Ergo, we have a whole bunch of amorphous hot hatches powered by 2.0T’s and DSGs chasing a rather meaningless metric of performance on some German race track.

On a gut level, this seems plain wrong. Honda has always adhered to an iconoclastic way of doing things that bordered on arrogance. Think about their steadfast refusal to build a rear-drive V8 luxury sedan, or a bigger motor for the NSX or put a V6 in the Accord for so many generations or even enter the light truck market. Their way was the only way, and they’d be damned if it cost them market share or profits.

Their resistance towards forced induction was a prime example of this. I have long suspected that they felt that forced induction was in some way “cheating”, an easy path to a sublime motor. In their eyes, VTEC was more efficient, more reliable and undeniably more thrilling. The RDX seemed like an odd anomaly at the time, and the fact that it wasn’t a great motor (while drinking vast amounts of fuel for such a small engine) didn’t help matters.

But when we view things through a dispassionate lens, it’s clear that Honda had to relent to increasingly onerous regulatory and market pressures for improved fuel economy and low emissions, especially in Europe, where the Civic Type-R is most important. The latest crop of turbo motors appear to be the only way to achieve these goals, which, unfortunately have ended the lineage of the B and K-Series VTEC motors in high performance applications. Understanding why this came to pass helps make it easier to swallow – but it does little to diminish the sense of loss.The Type-R could very well be brilliant, but it will also be a victim of the relentless regulation and market pressure that is driving performance cars to an unprecedented level of homogeneity. How sad.

In the mean time, turn up your speakers

 

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

66 Comments on “Generation Why: Honda PSIches Us Out With Turbo Type-R...”


  • avatar
    stuntmonkey

    > On a gut level, this seems plain wrong. Honda has always adhered to an iconoclastic way of doing things that bordered on arrogance.

    They said that about Honda’s first EU diesel engines, but that was a pretty good engine for a first take… aluminum block and all.

    As a one of the legions of Honda drivers who still has a car with a D-series motor… I love Honda as much as anybody (rpm is “free!”), but I wish we’d stop bowing before the branded-identity gods that we created for ourselves and just let people get on with the act of making stuff. It’s not about the revs anymore, just as it stopped being about the cubic inches before. So be it. Better to enjoy a car for what it is than for what we project onto it.

  • avatar

    As one who’s been fortunate to own an S2000 and a stablemate VFR800 for the last ten years, and enjoy them every time use them, I appreciate Honda’s ability to create hypersonic engines. Yet their steadfast refusal to establish an upgrade path in the Legend, NSX and the S2000 have lost them market share and caused the NSX and S2000 to cease to exist as 2013 models. The NSX and S2000 both were extraordinary designs which could easily have been polished for decades, much as Porsche has polished the 911, yet Honda resolutely refused to build variants which might have increased the sales appeal of either model. Surely a factory turbocharged NSX or god-forbid a V8 NSX would have given legs to this beautiful chassis. Similarly, a V6 or 3-liter V8 variant on the S2000, with a coupe body, could have catapulted it into a truly grand touring machine. What is sad to me is that Honda has these incredible strengths, but fails to use them.

    • 0 avatar
      jco

      oh man, I never imagined it that way. that Honda could continually build/refine/evolve the S2000. it would be the halo car to shut people like us up, while they continue to build Accord LXs. in my mind, the first generation of the car was perfection. i’m not sure it could get better. i think the AP2 was a step back.

      and you’re right, without a insane-revving twin-cam and double wishbones all around, does the type-R name matter? although, to be honest the idea of a turbo Honda doesn’t really bother me. if i missed the news I’m sorry, but is North America getting this car?

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        It’s the Euro Civic, so it’s unlikely to be sold here or even Japan for that matter (they don’t ANY Civics in Japan anymore), but the engine could end up in other cars.

    • 0 avatar
      Frankie the Hollywood Scum

      Don’t forget the first next gen NSX was being developed to use a V10. That motor was a victim of the 08 recession but still found it’s way to a GT racer.

      Also Honda is a relatively small manufacturer that has to carefully allocate it’s R&D money and engineering time. That makes it hard to take on projects that are not going to contribute to the companies net.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      This argument is bogus, no offense. “Having products to move into” is not a source of volume. Everyone who buys a 3 series doesn’t upgrade to a 5, everyone who buys a 5 doesn’t upgrade to a 7, and the sales volume (with each series losing an order of magnitude in volume as you go up) proves this.

      Likewise, a few halo products have no bearing on volume in any meaningful way. The millions of folks buying Civics and Accords every year don’t give a damn about the Type-R and NSX and S2K, as brilliant as those cars were.

      Don’t get me wrong…. Honda’s trajectory, like BMW’s, over the last decade has been gut wrenching for me down to the last detail (the K series engine losing TRUE DOHC VTEC in all iterations for starters). But at the end of the day, the market + profitability of the cars I loved were just not a fit for Honda so they rightfully dumped them. Plus as someone on TTAC wrote articles on, everything awesome from Japan in the 80s/90s was an abberation, not the norm. Honda today is the norm. Let’s move on

      • 0 avatar
        Synchromesh

        I beg to differ. Honda basically became Toyota – a faceless corporation that only cares about profit, not engineering that stamps out millions of toaster-like appliances. By doing so they managed to lose most of the enthusiasts. Even Toyota figured out that you must have something other than beige Camry/Corolla to offer people and collaborated with Subaru on FR-S/BRZ.

        I used to be a Honda fanboi and had 2 Hondas over a span of 12.5 years. Used Hondas were awesome. But when it came time to buy a newer car a couple of years ago I didn’t even look at Honda. Why? Because they make junk. Reliable and economical, sure but soulless junk nonetheless. Not one of their cars is exciting anymore. I drove a Civic Si a few years back and it was no better in most respects than my 2000 Integra GS-R, a design that dates to early 1990s. Heck, even I’d rather have an Fiat Abarth for the same money. So I paid a bit more and gave my money to Subaru. At least they care about the enthusiasts a little.

  • avatar
    Landcrusher

    There are few things that would please me more than to learn that I wouldn’t have to hear that nail on a chalk board sound from another of those so called mufflers driving down a public street.

    Worse than the noise is the idiocy it represents. Good resources being wasted, peace being disturbed, and the safety of all around being risked in an embarrassing exercise of Viva Yo. Right, we are all impressed with your rust covered crap mobile that would lose a race to a car available on any used lot today for half your investment in time and money. Next time, save yourself a lot of trouble and buy a whistle and a conical hat and stand on the corner with a cardboard sign identifying yourself as an idiot.

    And by the way – Stay off my lawn!

    • 0 avatar
      Preludacris

      Have you ever driven a ricer?

      Seriously, hear me out. The extra volume adds so much character to the car, and so much extra sensory feedback to the driving experience, that driving is more eventful and – dare I say it? – more fun!

      The downsides mostly outweigh that though.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        No I haven’t driven one. I am not so rude as to do it on the street, and I am not into racing. You totally helped me understand my own frustration with your post though. My biggest pet peeve is when people greatly irritate others, knowingly or not, in order to gain a small amount of pleasure for themselves. One example is smash and grab theft. The victim loses many times more than the perp gains. Add to that, we all now have to take steps to secure ourselves. Another is ridiculous pollution transgressions such as loud noises with no real purpose such as these hot rods which can’t win a street race versus a tricycle.

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          This subculture still exists in Columbus, Ohio, near Marysville home of Honda. It cracks me to see the infamous fart-canned ricer Civic driven by what appears to be a 40 year old male. Another was circa 1999 blue Si owner with H-O-N-D-A tatooed down his arm. VTEC runs deep in central Ohio.

          But you head out to eastern PA, some 7 hours away and it’s all Stance V-Dubs. Interesting dicotomy between them as gues the Stance guys can afford a couple of sets of tires per year due to the crazy camber they run.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            Believe me, we have fart-can VeeDubs in Eastern PA too, often driven by the same kind of douchebags who own fart-can Civics. Dunno what “stanced” means, is that when idiot import owners purposely angle their rims and make their cars look broken?

          • 0 avatar
            Ian Anderson

            I’m in eastern PA, and believe me there are plenty of ricer Hondas/Toyotas/etc out here, in my area outnumbering the VWs. The VWs vastly outnumber the Hondas in the junkyards though!

            Of course the only reason I know the junkyard part is because I’m usually there scrounging/hoarding old Dodge Dakota parts so my ’92 (V6 manual with a good sounding exhaust) can keep showing the ricers its taillights.

    • 0 avatar
      azmtbkr81

      Irritating for sure but not nearly as much as a Harley. I swear those things are nothing but $30k gas powered noisemakers.

      • 0 avatar
        Landcrusher

        I disagree on which is worse, but I feel your pain. They similarly do things to add noise when more performance is available for half the price. Out the factory they aren’t that bad so long as the riders don’t purposely juice them at stop lights “Hey, look at me, I’m not really a boring guy who is wasting money trying to look cool. Really, I’m not…really.”

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      Between this and tinted lights I have concluded that many modders don’t drive their cars for more than an hour before considering what mods they choose.

      I remember reading a forum thread by someone who drove a riced Honda, he liked the noise but after an hour his eardrums were ringing badly.

  • avatar
    Pch101

    “it’s clear that Honda had to relent to increasingly onerous regulatory and market pressures for improved fuel economy and low emissions, especially in Europe”

    Although the CO2 regulations are a factor for the European car market as a whole, I suspect that the main motivator here is that the benchmarks of this class — the GTI and Golf R — have turbos.

    If the car that define the class is turbocharged, then it behooves all of the challengers to also offer turbocharging.

  • avatar
    Fordson

    OMG…worlds collide.

    Waiting for DeadWeight, MBella and wmba to show up – I brought the Kleenex.

    They have made a cottage industry of explaining to us mortals how Honda and other Japanese powertrain engineers have long decided that NA, hyperspeed engines are the way to go and that turbos are just not in the picture at J.A. Pan & Co., don’t you know.

    I want to see how they re-interpret the tea leaves for us, now that this bit of news has dropped.

    Where is my popcorn smilie when I really need it…?

    • 0 avatar
      stuntmonkey

      Focus ST, Megane, Gti. Rev’s are free, but so is boost. The question is not whether or not boost is better than NA, but whether or not you want to build a more powerful motor or not. In the 90′s, it was rev’s versus displacement; today it’s rev’s versus boost. It’s a pedantic argument, you can only go so far turning out the rev’s, you can go a bit further turning up the boost… assuming you want to stay at the same price range. Since these are play things, it doesn’t matter which is better, it’s not a level playing field like in an actual racing series, where everybody builds according to the same rules.

      Also, if anybody is paying attention to F1, Honda loves playing up the connection between F1 and their cars. In the 90′s it was about rev’s, because that was what their F-1 engines did. Next year it will be about the turbos and energy recovery…. hence the Type-R and eventual NSX.

      As far as my daily driver… between the Civic Si and the VW Gti, both 200bhp, my own personal choice would come down to accumulated running costs to at least 12-years, if not more. Not a hard choice to make, that.

    • 0 avatar
      MBella

      You have misunderstood what I was saying. I said that a turbo motor will be less reliable. Which it will be, even in a Honda. In a car like this it makes sense since it is a limited edition performance car. I actually love a good turbo motor, but find it absurd in a everyday boring family sedan. I said that there was no real world advantage between for a 1.4L turbo engine and a 2.0l n/a. They will have the same fuel economy,and performance, but the turbo will have more problems. In a performance car, you take that as the trade-off for the performance. Do I want my parents’ Accord to have something like a 1.6l turbo instead of the 2.4l n/a unit? No. They (and me for that matter) just want the car to be reliable, with no strange turbo gremlins popping up. This is what most everyday appliance car buyers want. They will not be happy with the added turbo headaches. In a performance car like this Civic Type-R, I am all about a turbocharged engine, and am in the market of finding some sort of turbocharged project for myself. I am however aware of the pitfalls of that path and have excepted them. I also know how to fix the car myself, which most people don’t. If Honda announces an all turbo line-up like Ford and VW did, I will be the first to criticize that move when it happens, and it will happen because of the new CAFE rules, and how easy it is to game them with these new low displacement turbos.

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        A 1.4l can be tuned through the ecu and tcu(trans)for as little as $300 to be faster than a Honda or Mazda 2.0l and the 1.4l will still see 40 mpgs.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          Yes, and why wouldn’t the manufacturer tune their motor that way? Also, most direct injection motors haven’t been that tune-able because the high pressure pump is sized to the designed output and needs to be replaced to get sizeable power increases.

      • 0 avatar
        Frankie the Hollywood Scum

        The downsized turbo motors that are showing up everywhere are still the first generation for many manufactures while there is decades of experience with NA gas motors. As the technology matures and the thermal management improves I’m sure they will become a better choice than a larger NA motor with respect to efficiency. I suspect the big problem right now is the combination of close coupled catalytic converters and high exhaust gas temperatures forcing the power train engineers to calibrate the engine to run rich to protect the hardware….

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          Here is stock 2.0T with Ecu and ethanol fuel. You’ll a 400hp V8 sports car or GT to keep up:

          http://buickforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-31111.html

          Some of the most uninformed posts come from non-turbo owners.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          Right. This is why VW is using thermal management in its integrated exhaust manifold – a regulated coolant loop runs through it and reduces allowable temps under full load so running rich under those circumstances is not required. They’re claiming something like 20% better FE under heavy throttle application.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            Weird that they put a turbo in only to dump that heat back out into the air again. Makes me wonder if the engine is not sized right for the application.

  • avatar
    Maymar

    I eagerly anticipate the howls of complaint from the Internet over turbo Hondas, likely from the same people who complained that the current Si and Type-R are down on power compared to the turbo’d competition (such as the unrefined, torque steering MazdaSpeed3).

    Then again, is there anything Honda can do that someone won’t loudly proclaim as a slight to what Honda used to be?

    • 0 avatar
      aristurtle

      Sure, the new CB1100 is exactly the right track for Honda to be on right now. They should take whatever team managed to push that through their corporate bureaucracy and put them in charge of the whole company.

      Also, it will be hilarious when the people complaining are the same people that have been bolting junkyard Mitsubishi turbochargers onto B-engines for the past fifteen years.

      Basically, that’s all I see this move as. It’s a “factory modded” car, like the Chevy Cobalt SS that would roll off the dealer lot with a boost gauge screwed into the A-pillar. Makes perfect sense.

    • 0 avatar
      Preludacris

      They could build the Gear concept.

  • avatar
    Stumpaster

    Maybe, just may be, Honda is tired of decades of auto articles that say great engine and revs freely but lacks low end torque? I drive TSX 2.4 and I just tried BMW N20 engine and it’s frigging amazing. Not $8K amazing that BMW charges, but still, the push at 2K rpm was something else.

    • 0 avatar
      krhodes1

      This. A highly strung 8K rpm engine is great fun – for about 15 minutes. On a racetrack. In the real world, a 2.0T gets the job done in a much less annoying way.

      But I have never been a Honda fan – around here they are just cheap tin boxes that rot out in 5 years. Doesn’t matter how reliable the thing is if you can use the floors as a colander.

      • 0 avatar
        NoGoYo

        Torque wins drag races. That’s why short-stroke V8s are really only good on a track, imagine trying to drive a Ferrari 360/430/458 on a regular basis with that extremely high-strung V8 screaming about everything and offering little in the way of torque!

        Unless Ferrari somehow managed to make a high-revving short stroke V8 that doesn’t have zilch-o-torque during normal driving.

        • 0 avatar
          stuntmonkey

          I don’t know how 398-lb-ft qualifies as “torqueless” for a 458.

          • 0 avatar
            NoGoYo

            It’s not torqueless, but the engine makes peak power at 9000 rpm, so it probably wouldn’t be much fun in normal driving regardless.

            They say 80 percent of the torque is available at lower RPMs, but does that mean you’re all torque and no power until you get the engine screaming?

          • 0 avatar
            stuntmonkey

            > It’s not torqueless, but the engine makes peak power at 9000 rpm, so it probably wouldn’t be much fun in normal driving regardless.

            I have yet to hear of anybody complaining that any modern Ferrari is no fun because of a lack of torque at low speeds.

            >They say 80 percent of the torque is available at lower RPMs, but does that mean you’re all torque and no power until you get the engine screaming?

            You need to do more reading on the relationship between torque, displacement and horsepower and gearing. “Torque moves cars” and “torque vs bhp” is a simplistic and incomplete understanding. Suffice it to say, 80% of 400 ft-lbs at 3000 rpm is still more than your average fast car.

      • 0 avatar
        CJinSD

        “around here they are just cheap tin boxes that rot out in 5 years. Doesn’t matter how reliable the thing is if you can use the floors as a colander.”

        Do you live in 1980?

        • 0 avatar
          NormSV650

          CJ, Japanese cars rust away in the Great Lakes areas. That’s one of the reasons why the Toyota and Hondas are recalled for rusting brake lines and broken tire hangers in this area.

          There are no 1980′s Hondas in the Cleveland area, nor 1990′s. I did see an Acura RSX the other day surprisingly. I also saw a 2007 era Camry that was bleeding rust from the rear door handles. I’ve seen the car a few times and want to catch the owner just to ask if it was repaired from an accident at one time. Mid-2000′s Camrys usually rust streaks around door handles and and rear fixed window seams.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            Coming from Central NY, I think we’re the road salt capital of the US. My town had a salt mine about 20 miles away.

            1990s Hondas are still around in a big way, the 1996 refresh accords are actually quite resistant to the rear quarter panel rust. There are still plenty of the 94-95 MY accords, they just have bad rear quarter panel rust. Even the 1990-1993 Accords are still ubiquitous. 92-96 Camries still look good, they’re only now starting to rot. I’ve literally never seen a rusty 2002-2005 Camry, let alone a 2007.

            Domestics rot up here too, and just as much for the most part: Cavaliers, Tauruses, crown vics, malibus, you name it. The 2002ish new body style Rams have box rot. Heck, Volvo 850s are starting to rust around here! Never thought I’d see the day :(

            Some of the oldsmobiles with plastic fenders still look good, but they suffer from front subframes rusting out. As a fellow commenter pointed out recently, the Jimmy/Blazer from the later 90s is also surprisingly rust resistant.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            Doesn’t sound you are scooping rock salt off pockets on the frame like we do in Ohio. The liquid brine including variates of sodium and magnesium that is sprayed on the road end up creating a white cake type icing that ends up every where after a windy drive highway drive and ends up on the non-painted side of the car. No car wash can flush it all off until the spring rains comes and another highway ride.

          • 0 avatar
            Marko

            “That’s one of the reasons why the Toyota and Hondas are recalled for rusting brake lines and broken tire hangers in this area.”

            …and Isuzus…and Fords…and Hyundais…and so on. Name one company that has never had a rust recall on some part.

      • 0 avatar
        Sam P

        I considered buying an AP2 S2000 years ago before I ultimately bought my E46 330i.

        I’m glad I didn’t go that route. The S2000 was a bare-bones buzz box compared to the 3-liter BMW Z4 and Nissan 350Z that I was also considering. Insanely high redlines may be fun for Internet bragging rights, but solid midrange torque and a 6-cylinder song is much more fun in the real world.

  • avatar
    azmtbkr81

    Honda has been without a competitive sports or sports compact car for 5 years now, at this point anything is better than continuing on their current uber-bland trajectory.

    Homogeneity of engine layout is a small price to pay for having access to a variety of 250+ HP and 30+ MPG cars for under $25k.

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Dare I say it, but the fact is that Honda’s first turbo — in the Gen. 1 the RSX was just plain not very good. Not only did it suck gas like a 6-liter V-8, it hat the “light switch” (on/off) character of any number of turbos that were introduced in 1980s cars: Volvo, Saab, Peugeot, Porsche, you name it. Getting the RDX moving from a dead stop with moderate acceleration was quite a trick. At tip in, nothing much happened. Responding to this lack of response, the driver used more pedal to get the car moving. At about the same time, the boost came on; and the car launched forward. Whoa Nellie! This was fun at first, but soon became tiresome.

    It was hardly better than a first generation Volvo turbo I remember driving up the PCH just north of the Golden Gate. Even with the speed control engaged, the car would not hold a constant 60 mph on some of those hills. Off boost, the engine would bog down and the car would slow. Then the CC would apply more throttle, the boost would come in and the car would surge forward, exceeding the target speed.

    Maybe Honda could hire Saab as a consultant on turbo engines. I found the Saab turbo in my ’02 to be quite good, in terms of power, driveability and fuel economy. This was 250 hp from a 2.3 liter 4, with 16 valves but no trick valvegear.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      And I would be willing to bet that the turbo they introduce on the Type R will not be very well implemented, nor will their first dual-clutch gearbox. Because they don’t have much experience with those technologies for road cars.

      That is the hidden problem with being too conservative – by the time you finally get dragged kicking and screaming, everybody else is too far ahead, their brands are now identified with those technologies, and you are viewed as a johnny-come-lately.

      That’s not good for a company that sees itself as engineering-driven.

      Civic LX customers don’t care about that, but Civic Type R customers do.

      • 0 avatar
        sportyaccordy

        They have had DSG in a bike for quite some time now, and have extensive seamless gearbox transmission experience from MotoGP. Plus Honda is a late adapter because they would rather let other manufacturers make mistakes and then adapt the technology once it’s matured to help protect their reputation.

        My gripe with the DSG is that this thing probably won’t be fast enough to warrant it over a conventional box. Nor will they program it to be as engaging.

        • 0 avatar
          Demetri

          You can see that it has a stick at ~44 seconds into the video, so at this point in development, no DSG, but it isn’t supposed to be on sale for a while, so I guess that could change.

  • avatar
    sexyhammer

    Model bloat and increased weight from ever-expanding mandatory safety equipment means that an NA 4cyl just can’t push (pull?) the civic around the way that it did back in the day. Rather than continue to extract astronomical peak HP figures and throw TQ out the window, they shifted paradigms and moved to the more sensible solution of FI.

    Would I trade a modern turbocharged “Type-R” for a real Type-R? Yeah. Would I be slower around the Nurburgring than the new car? Definitely, but who cares?

  • avatar
    ash78

    This is just another point of concern for me regarding Honda, after the failure to give us an Accord diesel as promised a few years ago, nor an Accord wagon as hinted, then the introduction of the Crosstour which was designed by a mangy cat with one good eye, to the newest Odyssey which was apparently designed by a hamster with no eyes.

    And no, most aftermarket-loving Honda owners (I stop short of saying that spending $200 at Pep Boys makes you a “tuner”) are doing the company no favors.

    I’m still hung up on the comment about how the NSX and S2000 could have evolved and lived on. I don’t know how the company will continue without them as aspirational/halo cars.

  • avatar
    suspekt

    Honda and BMW are master engine builders.

    I think the “blogosphere” has no clue what Honda’s HPD arm does and how deep into motorsport they really are. Just because Honda doesn’t sell high-powered street cars doesn’t mean they don’t have vastly superior motorsports credibility then most OEM’s in the world.

    Does everyone here not realize that Honda currently supplies IndyCar with a 2.2 V6 Turbo????

    Does everyone here not realize that Honda has the LMP2 class ARX-03b powered by a 2.8 SOHC SOHC SOHC twin turbo V6?

    Does everyone here not realize that Honda has the LMP1 class ARX-03a powered by a 600hp 3.4 DOHC V8?

    Honda know’s turbo’s. Don’t doubt it

    • 0 avatar
      suspekt

      ah, but Hyundai has a 2.0TEEEE in the Sonata and Ford has a 2.0T in the Escape so cleary both this OEM’s are ahead of the game in engine manufacturing expertise…. except they aren’t.

      I think Honda has done all of the Accord/Civic/CRV buyers a favour by sticking to PORT INJECTED NA engines the past 10 years.

      Honda will go DOHC/DI/TURBO… but, in my opinion, they have embarrassed the entire industry with their ability to push their existing engine technologies (port injected SOHC engines) up against clean-sheet designs from most OEM’s…. its genius really

      • 0 avatar
        NormSV650

        Yes, with power increases so does the support from the transmissions. Those media reviews of rifle action throws and smooth clicks into gear that once accompanied 150 lb-ft of torque weaklings will now have almost double the torque output to handle.

        • 0 avatar
          Sam P

          http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2013-honda-accord-coupe-v-6-manual-test-review

          “Manual fans will delight in the mechanical feel of the Accord’s shifter. Quick shifts and nicely placed pedals make the stick a purist’s delight.”

          252 lb/feet of torque from the V6 in the current Accord Coupe 6-speed.

          Please proceed, Norm.

          • 0 avatar
            NormSV650

            The Honda V6 is about the lowest output in torque of the last of the Japanese sixes with 252 lb-ft at a loft 5,000 rpms. With peak power at 6,800 rpms it has one of the narrowest power band windows in a V6 passenger car in the US.

            GM’s Ecotec 2.0T makes more torque over a wider operating range, “Torque remains the same at 295 lb-ft, though GM now claims 90 percent of it is available between 1700 rpm and 5500 rpm.” A similar 2.0T from GM was tuned to a warrantied 340 lb-ft of torque. Honda does not have anything remotely close of that output available in the US, nor do the heavily reliant Japanese V6′s.

    • 0 avatar
      Fordson

      Who is talking about motorsports credibility?

      Honda’s only know street application (RDX) for a powerplant in this category was unimpressive, to say the least.

      You are talking about racing engines with no production antecedents.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      Then why was the K23A1 in the RDX such absolute crap

  • avatar
    mr_min

    Derek, You’ve hit upon an issue, I’ve observed from many car companies. Its not specific to Turbo or Not Turbo, the wider issue is that many engines today lack what I would term character.
    Its a combination of exhaust note, intake noise and mechanical noise from the engine. The video of the new Civic sounds exactly like every other 4 cylinder turbo, a droney noise with no sparkle or hint of excitement. The joy of the original VTEC was howl of a mechanical perfect engine revving high.
    There should be a celebration of the experience of putting your foot down (for the driver). Maybe the Chevelle SS Hood scoops should come back…

  • avatar
    CelticPete

    I like the change. Hondas with their high reving low torque engines have always been nice to drive with a stick but crap with an automatic.

    So say C and D would review the manual Honda and like it. But if you bought it based on that review and were foolish enough to pick an automatic.. yikes. Not only did it feel sluggish – it just wasn’t much fun. By the time you got going it seemed to be too late…

    While high displacement ohv engines provide the best driving experience with an automatic. Turbos done right are second best. The Audi and BMW use sophisiticated systems that minimize turbo lag and provide power down low. This makes the car feel pretty responsive – except right off the line. Its a good match for an auto..

    Now Honda can do the same thing and better compete. HIgh revving is best for the track – like an F1 car. Its okay with a manual..

  • avatar
    Reino

    Has America EVER gotten a ‘Type R’ of any Honda? The only one I can recall was the Integra Type R. Maybe if we had gotten more Type-Rs all along, people would have been less apt to ‘rice’ up a base model.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      They were too expensive. ITR was the feeler and it failed.

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        I wouldn’t call it a failure. It was never meant to be a volume product because of its track-oriented nature. Type-R only cost about 2 grand more than the GS-R, which was not bad at all. There were rumors that because of the semi-bespoke manufacturing process, Honda lost money on every ITR sold, but I don’t know if that’s true.

        • 0 avatar

          I saw a Type R Civic in a dealer in NY a few years back. The bastard put a 10,000 ADM sticker on it after full retail, overpriced floor mats and a wax job.

          It is just sad to see what Honda offers in Europe, and the vanilla (insult to vanilla) bore-mo-biles here. Diesel ? High Po versions….nope. Stiff suspension ? Surely you jest.

    • 0 avatar
      Demetri

      We missed out on three generations of Civic Type-R and the RSX Type-R. There were also Type-R (or Euro-R) versions of the sixth-gen Japanese and Euro Accord that were never sold here, and an NSX Type-R that was sold in very limited quantities in Japan. Europe had a Type-R branded version of the previous generation Euro Civic, but it was analogous to our Civic Si, and not a true Type-R.

      We also missed out on some cool SiR models, like the second gen CR-X SiR that had about 40 more horsepower than the Si that they sold here, and the last Prelude SiR.

  • avatar
    krayzie

    Derek you need to send that first video to Honda for immediate distribution to all their employees for mandatory viewing!!!

    Also this video with gansan driving S2000 prototype on Nurburgring


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India