Consumer Reports: "Disappointing ION"...

> This is such a sweeping statement that it is pretty hard to respond
> to. I dont know which Hondas or domestics you have driven. But even
> taking it at face value, so what? I dont think you will find many
> Honda fans who think that taking the engine to high rpms is a burden.
> If it bothers you, don't buy one.

ffrom my experiance honda customers are not any brighter. they treat
their cars like refrigerators like every one else.
just give it some thought as to what happens when you rev an engine
higher than what would be considered normal mr satyr. you draw more
air and fuel and work the engine harder and create more friction. all
of that is an impediment to being more effeciant. what is the point of
a smaller displacement engine if it has to move as much air as a
larger displacement engine to make up for what it lacks. i think that
was the point being made.

> >Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine
>
> There isn't?

no and thats probably a good thing when it comes to repairs, if those
engines ever need it.

> I don't think that it is Honda's fault that Chevy is still selling 10+
> year old engine technology, but OK...

no but from my experiance gms techs got it good. no timing belts to
replace, no pulling off a bunch of other belts just to replace a silly
timing belt. gm was using coil packs in the 80s. honda kept running
caps and rotors for ever. those damn timing chains in gm v motors last
for ever. i dont know how many jumped timing belts i have delt with.
gm has kept it simple and still keeps their old technology efficient.
since its old tech parts have to be easy to find instead of waiting
for parts to arive in the shop from who knows

> So it kicks ass by producing 20% less hp and 10% less torque?

i think he ment it kicks ass because it is not impeded by cumbersome
technology that i deal with all to much.

> > "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
> >less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.
>
> What is involved in "dealing with" VVT (and lift BTW)? There is no
> extra maintenance and the system has essentially perfect reliability -
> never heard of a failure.

hell yeah that vvt has alerted many honda drivers that there was
something wrong. if they did not bring their cars in on those check
engine lights they would lock those engines up. that vvt solenoid
needs oil to work. without it there would be no warning to low oil
levels because the oil pressure sending unit will be happy with way
less than a quart of oil in the system. give it up for vvt. now if
only those pesky pcvs would stop failing and sucking oil out of the
crank case it wouldnt be as much of a problem. although the vvt does
make itmore crowded in there.


> I don't have a torque curve for the 3.5, but here is an independent
> measurement (taken through the wheels) for the Honda 3.0.
> http://sohc.vtec.net/article_files/1...ord6mtdyno.jpg
> Note that the engine produces 185 - 195 ft*lb (ie, at least 95% of
> peak torque) at any rpm between 1900 and 6100. Torque at 1500 rpm is
> about 90% of peak. When you figure in a 10% loss through the drive
> train, the lower end of the torque curve is just about identical to
> the GM motors you posted at the bottom end (despite 14% less
> displacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% of
> peak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60
> to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want to
> equal the GM's performance.

yeah give it up for engine wear and more suck and blow. if it wasnt
for vvt honda engines would still be dogs. whats funny is gm has their
ls1 which makes monster power but gets over 30mpg. strange is it not?
and its amazingly easy to change the plugs on them from what ifound
with one rare experience i got to workon 1. the more i see of gm
things the more i think displacement and less moving parts is the way
to go. i guess thats why honda engines keep getting bigger. i once
read where a 2000 something firebird in 6th gear doing 65mph on the
highway would pull itself upto 80mph without touching the gas pedal do
to so much engine torque. i do not know of any hondas thta are able to
do that.

> GM said recently that after one year, they are very
> pleased with the deal.

Oh yes bean counters love non-union labor.


> It has contributed to increase dramatically the VUE
> sales.

Where the hell did you pull this from? I'd really like to know and have
the break down on which % have ecotecs and which % have the 3.5. Where I
work probably 2% of the Vue's we get in for scheduled service have the
3.5's. The majority have been Ecotecs with the 3.0 close behind that.
Thank god for those Ecotecs to. Nothings worse than those damn 60deg V
engine. Compacted motors like those arent designed for human hands.

On 18 Jun 2004 10:38:49 -0700, (ht1997) wrote:

>> This is such a sweeping statement that it is pretty hard to respond
>> to. I dont know which Hondas or domestics you have driven. But even
>> taking it at face value, so what? I dont think you will find many
>> Honda fans who think that taking the engine to high rpms is a burden.
>> If it bothers you, don't buy one.
>
>ffrom my experiance honda customers are not any brighter. they treat
>their cars like refrigerators like every one else.

Note that I said fan, not customer. The ordinary customer (who is
probably driving an AT) just pushes on the happy pedal until the
scenery is passing at an acceptable rate. These people rarely push
the car hard enough to make any difference what is under the hood.
All the same, they seem to like their Hondas a lot.

>just give it some thought as to what happens when you rev an engine
>higher than what would be considered normal mr satyr. you draw more
>air and fuel and work the engine harder and create more friction. all
>of that is an impediment to being more effeciant.

Obviously the quantity of air and fuel consumed is proportional to the
power demanded from any engine. Friction really isn't a major source
of inefficiency. Up to a point, automotive gas engines get more
efficient as the throttle is opened wider. What does any of this
prove? Nothing. The actual in-use efficiency differences may depend
on how/where you drive it and perhaps other factors as well.


what is the point of
>a smaller displacement engine if it has to move as much air as a
>larger displacement engine to make up for what it lacks. i think that
>was the point being made.

Less weight, more compact and yes, better fuel efficiency in normal
driving than bigger engines of comparable hp.


weight eng. hp torque mpg

Grand Prix 3484 3.8 V6 200@5200 230@4000 20/30

Accord 3384 3.0 V6 240@6250 212@5000 21/30
200@5200est 200@4000est

The smaller engine has 20% more horsepower and gets slightly better
milage (at least when you aren't using that extra horsepower.) The
reduced torque can easily be compensated by using a lower first gear
and the shift to second will still be at about the same mph. The
difference in hp (and the 100 less pounds due in part to the smaller
engine) should be pretty decisive in a quarter mile.

>> >Since there isnt a 4valve per cylinder engine
>>
>> There isn't?
>
>no and thats probably a good thing when it comes to repairs, if those
>engines ever need it.

Not likely.

>> I don't think that it is Honda's fault that Chevy is still selling 10+
>> year old engine technology, but OK...
>
>no but from my experiance gms techs got it good. no timing belts to
>replace, no pulling off a bunch of other belts just to replace a silly
>timing belt.

I thought the Honda V6 used a chain. (I actually prefer a belt.)

> gm was using coil packs in the 80s. honda kept running
>caps and rotors for ever.

I think they still are. Can't say I ever had a problem with them and
they seem to work pretty good at 8K rpm. What more could you want?

> those damn timing chains in gm v motors last
>for ever. i dont know how many jumped timing belts i have delt with.
>gm has kept it simple and still keeps their old technology efficient.
>since its old tech parts have to be easy to find instead of waiting
>for parts to arive in the shop from who knows
>
>> So it kicks ass by producing 20% less hp and 10% less torque?
>
>i think he ment it kicks ass because it is not impeded by cumbersome
>technology that i deal with all to much.

Don't really see it as cumbersome. Pretty invisible mostly except for
the effect on performance.

>> > "but" 12 less valves and 3 less cams and 3 feet
>> >less of timing chain... Not to mention no VVT to deal with.
>>
>> What is involved in "dealing with" VVT (and lift BTW)? There is no
>> extra maintenance and the system has essentially perfect reliability -
>> never heard of a failure.
>
>hell yeah that vvt has alerted many honda drivers that there was
>something wrong.

I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but I am a regular
reader of the Honda boards and I can't recall ever seeing a complaint
about a VTEC problem. Not too many complaints about oil consumption
either - unlike the Saturn group.


if they did not bring their cars in on those check
>engine lights they would lock those engines up. that vvt solenoid
>needs oil to work. without it there would be no warning to low oil
>levels because the oil pressure sending unit will be happy with way
>less than a quart of oil in the system. give it up for vvt. now if
>only those pesky pcvs would stop failing and sucking oil out of the
>crank case it wouldnt be as much of a problem. although the vvt does
>make itmore crowded in there.

It seems like you are saying that the first warning of low oil
pressure is a code for the VTEC. I don't know if that is true or not
but if it is, it is hardly a problem with the VTEC system.


>
>> displacement.) At the top end, the Honda is still producing 90% of
>> peak torque at 6400 - 600 rpm past the GM redline. The result is 60
>> to 70 additional hp but you don't *have* to use if you just want to
>> equal the GM's performance.
>
>yeah give it up for engine wear and more suck and blow.

Engine longevity is one of the things people rave about in the Honda
group. Maybe they don't hit the rev limiter as often as I do, but
mine is still going strong after 10 years and 125K.

>if it wasnt
>for vvt honda engines would still be dogs.

And if I didn't put gas in the tank, it wouldn't move at all. What is
your point?

>whats funny is gm has their
>ls1 which makes monster power but gets over 30mpg. strange is it not?

What's an Is1?

>and its amazingly easy to change the plugs on them from what ifound
>with one rare experience i got to workon 1. the more i see of gm
>things the more i think displacement and less moving parts is the way
>to go. i guess thats why honda engines keep getting bigger. i once
>read where a 2000 something firebird in 6th gear doing 65mph on the
>highway would pull itself upto 80mph without touching the gas pedal do
>to so much engine torque. i do not know of any hondas thta are able to
>do that.

So what you are saying is that to go slower than 80 in 6th, you have
to use the brakes? I think GM needs to turn the idle down a tad.
LOL. The fact that you would even think this is true does not say
much for your judgement.

In article >,
(satyr) wrote:

> I think they still are. Can't say I ever had a problem with them and
> they seem to work pretty good at 8K rpm. What more could you want?

How about not having to replace a cap and rotor every now and then.
Geez, even *GM* figured out DIS in the 80's. Caps and rotors suck.
They wear out, they're moisture sensitive, and they need to be replaced
every now and then. 225,000 miles later, my Saturn STILL has it's
origional coils and module....

> I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but I am a regular
> reader of the Honda boards and I can't recall ever seeing a complaint
> about a VTEC problem. Not too many complaints about oil consumption
> either - unlike the Saturn group.

Other than VTEC being a ****ty way to do variable timing? IMHO, the
ONLY reason Honda even retains that ass backward setup is because of the
marketing value it has...

> Engine longevity is one of the things people rave about in the Honda
> group. Maybe they don't hit the rev limiter as often as I do, but
> mine is still going strong after 10 years and 125K.

Oh wow!!!! Your magic Honda motor lasted 125k? I can't think of a car
engine today that doesn't last at least that long.

> And if I didn't put gas in the tank, it wouldn't move at all. What is
> your point?

Hondas are dogs? I think that's it. Hey, go to the local 1/4 and see
who's running fast. It's not the Civics and Accords.

> What's an Is1?

Corvette motor. Still pushrod, still 2 valve per cylinder, still
competitive. IIRC, about 350 - 400hp depending on year. Note that's
far above any Honda street car motor, yet the mileage is STILL quite
comperable. Wake me up when a production Honda turns it's numbers and
gets it's mileage. Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...

In article >,
says...
> In article >,
> (satyr) wrote:
>
> > I think they still are. Can't say I ever had a problem with them and
> > they seem to work pretty good at 8K rpm. What more could you want?

Same power at 4k instead of being wasted at 8k. Duh

> How about not having to replace a cap and rotor every now and then.
> Geez, even *GM* figured out DIS in the 80's. Caps and rotors suck.
> They wear out, they're moisture sensitive, and they need to be replaced
> every now and then. 225,000 miles later, my Saturn STILL has it's
> origional coils and module....

And chain to no doubt.

> > I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but I am a regular
> > reader of the Honda boards and I can't recall ever seeing a complaint
> > about a VTEC problem. Not too many complaints about oil consumption
> > either - unlike the Saturn group.
>
> Other than VTEC being a ****ty way to do variable timing? IMHO, the
> ONLY reason Honda even retains that ass backward setup is because of the
> marketing value it has...
>
> > Engine longevity is one of the things people rave about in the Honda
> > group. Maybe they don't hit the rev limiter as often as I do, but
> > mine is still going strong after 10 years and 125K.
>
> Oh wow!!!! Your magic Honda motor lasted 125k? I can't think of a car
> engine today that doesn't last at least that long.

<snicker> No kidding. When was the last time he actually owned a
domestic? 1915? (dont bother answering satyr/troll, I wont see it)

> > And if I didn't put gas in the tank, it wouldn't move at all. What is
> > your point?
>
> Hondas are dogs? I think that's it. Hey, go to the local 1/4 and see
> who's running fast. It's not the Civics and Accords.
>
> > What's an Is1?
>
> Corvette motor. Still pushrod, still 2 valve per cylinder, still
> competitive. IIRC, about 350 - 400hp depending on year. Note that's
> far above any Honda street car motor, yet the mileage is STILL quite
> comperable. Wake me up when a production Honda turns it's numbers and
> gets it's mileage. Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
> make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...

All good points Philip but I'm afraid they fall on deaf ears with
satyr. I looked this guy up in google groups and I didnt see anything
useful that he has contributed to the group what so ever. I added him to
the same filter misterfact is on some time back. He's actually worse
than misterfact because not only will he ignore every point made in a
post but he will flat out molest and manipulate every word you wrote to
meet his personal agenda which is to fill his ego. To really understand
his twisted level of thinking and reasoning you would have to hit
yourself in the head way to many times... There is a word for his kind,
its called "troll". If you stop fanning his flames he'll freeze and
disappear.

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 15:20:28 GMT, Blah blah > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>> In article >,
>> (satyr) wrote:
>>
>> > I think they still are. Can't say I ever had a problem with them and
>> > they seem to work pretty good at 8K rpm. What more could you want?
>
>Same power at 4k instead of being wasted at 8k. Duh

We were talking about the effectiveness of ignition caps and rotors.
They don't produce any power. Try to pay attention.

>> How about not having to replace a cap and rotor every now and then.
>> Geez, even *GM* figured out DIS in the 80's. Caps and rotors suck.
>> They wear out, they're moisture sensitive, and they need to be replaced
>> every now and then. 225,000 miles later, my Saturn STILL has it's
>> origional coils and module....
>
>And chain to no doubt.

I think there is some doubts about that. Google this group for timing
chain failure.


>> > And if I didn't put gas in the tank, it wouldn't move at all. What is
>> > your point?
>>
>> Hondas are dogs? I think that's it. Hey, go to the local 1/4 and see
>> who's running fast. It's not the Civics and Accords.


> All good points Philip but I'm afraid they fall on deaf ears with
>satyr. I looked this guy up in google groups and I didnt see anything
>useful that he has contributed to the group what so ever.

In your opinion.

> I added him to
>the same filter misterfact is on some time back. He's actually worse
>than misterfact because not only will he ignore every point made in a
>post but he will flat out molest and manipulate every word you wrote to
>meet his personal agenda which is to fill his ego.

LOL. Philip is the one who snipped the relevant parts out of the post
so that you didn't even understand what I was saying (see cap and
rotor comment above.) As for distortion, how about his comment about
VTEC being troublesome but when called on it he mumbles something
about it not working if there is low oil pressure. And it is clear
from my comment that my engine didn't just last 125K, it is still
going strong despite the severe use I give it. I realize that most
engines can last longer than 125K these days, but most aren't driven
as hard as I do mine and it could still easily go 225K.

> To really understand
>his twisted level of thinking and reasoning you would have to hit
>yourself in the head way to many times... There is a word for his kind,
>its called "troll". If you stop fanning his flames he'll freeze and
>disappear.

Of course you didn't even follow your own advice. I am not a troll by
my definition anyway. A troll posts intentionally inflammatory
rhetoric (not heartfelt beliefs) usually to multiple, adversarial
newsgroups and then never responds to any of it. Maybe your
definition is anyone who dares to disagree with you. Of course, you
aren't even reading this because you plonked me, right?

On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 09:58:45 -0400, Philip Nasadowski
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (satyr) wrote:
>
>> I think they still are. Can't say I ever had a problem with them and
>> they seem to work pretty good at 8K rpm. What more could you want?
>
>How about not having to replace a cap and rotor every now and then.
>Geez, even *GM* figured out DIS in the 80's. Caps and rotors suck.
>They wear out, they're moisture sensitive, and they need to be replaced
>every now and then. 225,000 miles later, my Saturn STILL has it's
>origional coils and module....

Yeah, replacing the cap and rotor every 60K is a real burden. Of
course, Honda ignition wires seem to last about 3X longer than Saturn
so that's a plus.

And I hear you have to change the oil every 3K in a Saturn. At least
if you don't want to put a new timing chain on it. But hey, we can go
piece by piece or we can just see what the Consumer Reports survey
says about engine reliability. Oh look, Civic (or any other Honda)
engines are much more reliable than Saturn (S series) engines.


>> I am not entirely sure what you are saying here but I am a regular
>> reader of the Honda boards and I can't recall ever seeing a complaint
>> about a VTEC problem. Not too many complaints about oil consumption
>> either - unlike the Saturn group.
>
>Other than VTEC being a ****ty way to do variable timing? IMHO, the
>ONLY reason Honda even retains that ass backward setup is because of the
>marketing value it has...

This is pure BS. VTEC engines are at the very top in terms of
specific output in production atmo engines. They are at the top in
reliability. (You can't give an example of even a single VTEC
failure). They are fuel efficient in relation to the power they
produce. But the valve control system is "****ty" and "ass backward."

>> Engine longevity is one of the things people rave about in the Honda
>> group. Maybe they don't hit the rev limiter as often as I do, but
>> mine is still going strong after 10 years and 125K.
>
>Oh wow!!!! Your magic Honda motor lasted 125k? I can't think of a car
>engine today that doesn't last at least that long.

Saturn S series. Especially if you don't change the oil every 3K.

As for my car, sorry I don't have 225K on it, but it doesn't see many
highway miles. Mostly high speed and crawling urban commuting.


>
>> And if I didn't put gas in the tank, it wouldn't move at all. What is
>> your point?
>
>Hondas are dogs? I think that's it. Hey, go to the local 1/4 and see
>who's running fast. It's not the Civics and Accords.

What are you comparing? Modified cars - no relevance to 99+% of
owners including myself. Stock Corvette vs. Accord? Well, I would
hope the Corvette is faster. If you compare apples with apples or
stock Accord vs. Grand Prix like I was comparing before... Here are
test results from Car and Driver:

Eng. 0-60 1/4 mile top speed
Accord EX Coupe 3.0 V6 5.9 14.5 135
Grand Prix GT2 3.8 V6 8.1 16.2 109

Hey, what happened to all the torque from that 3.8? The marketing
department must have really worked on that Accord V6.


>
>> What's an Is1?
>
>Corvette motor. Still pushrod, still 2 valve per cylinder, still
>competitive. IIRC, about 350 - 400hp depending on year. Note that's
>far above any Honda street car motor, yet the mileage is STILL quite
>comperable. Wake me up when a production Honda turns it's numbers and
>gets it's mileage. Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
>make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...

Gee,

Honda may make one in the future or they may not. It doesn't concern
me because I am not likely to buy any vehicle which would use one. I
bet

Philip Nasadowski wrote:

> Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
> make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...

Bringggg....Bringgggggg


http://www.cartracingupdate.com/Cars/honda.htm


Ed

162 cubic inches, 300 lbs torque and 800 hp - wonder how many R's before it
starts to go?

"C. E. White" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Philip Nasadowski wrote:
>
> > Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
> > make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...
>
> Bringggg....Bringgggggg
>
>
> http://www.cartracingupdate.com/Cars/honda.htm
>
>
> Ed

In article <C7tCc.13015$WI2.97@lakeread05>,
says...
> 162 cubic inches, 300 lbs torque and 800 hp - wonder how many R's before it
> starts to go?

You forgot to mention it has a turbo so... Its not making s*** for
torque or hp compaired to a sbc with a turbo. Fairly gutless motor which
only confirms the saying "no replacement for displacement."


> "C. E. White" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > Philip Nasadowski wrote:
> >
> > > Hell, wake me up if/when honda finally bothers to
> > > make a V8. Even *toyota* makes one now...
> >
> > Bringggg....Bringgggggg
> >
> >
> > http://www.cartracingupdate.com/Cars/honda.htm
> >
> >
> > Ed
>
>
>