My Si has a DX motor!

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:02:32 -0600, Dave Garrett wrote:

>
> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.

If the dealer knew...

On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:19 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.

Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.

My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.

I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.

When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.

I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)

Dave Garrett > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> says...
>> Dave Garrett > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.



I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp



> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>


According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.

It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.

--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Dave Garrett wrote:
> In article > ,
> says...
>> Dave Garrett wrote:
>>> In article > ,
>>> says...
>>>> Dave Garrett wrote:
>
>>>>> I think I posted about this when my timing belt was changed a couple of
>>>>> years ago; the short version was that my usual mechanic told me after
>>>>> he'd finished the work that he thought my 90 CRX Si had a 1.5L engine
>>>>> instead of the usual 1.6, because the timing belt for a 1.6 didn't fit,
>>>>> but the belt from a 1.5 did. He claimed to have called a friend at a
>>>>> Honda dealer who told him that 1.5L engines had been installed in some
>>>>> Si models.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> that's b.s. the only way this happens is either if the car is
>>>> crashed/stolen parted out, then later rebuilt again with the cheap
>>>> motor, or the d16 blew and a cheapo d15 block was used as replacement.
>>>> whatever the deal, it's /way/ too late to do anything about the person
>>>> that did the work. if you want you can get d16's as jdm replacements
>>>> for not an incredible amount of money. depending on local emissions
>>>> laws, you can maybe get away with a zc motor - some of those are sweet -
>>>> cheap too.
>>> I thought it sounded like BS at the time too. I don't know enough about
>>> the details of the differences between the two engines - do they use the
>>> same block, or is it significantly different?
>> i don't do rebuilds so i don't know for sure, but afaik, the blocks and
>> heads are identical. the crank is slightly longer stroke [to give the
>> extra few cc's of capacity] and the cam is a little more punchy, but
>> other than that, they're the same.
>
> That's what I was wondering, if the block was the same and the longer
> stroke was from a different crank. Thanks for confirming that.
>
>>> And yeah, I'm certainly not expecting to have any recourse at this late
>>> date other than never patronizing that dealer again. If I'm going to do
>>> a swap, I'm inclined to go for a B16 for a significant power boost. But
>>> as you're probably well aware, a B16 transplant isn't nearly as easy a
>>> bolt-in as a ZC - off the top of my head, you need new motor mounts,
>> are you sure?
>>
>>> new
>>> axles,
>> are you sure?
>>
>>> a wiring subharness to connect the VTEC controller, a new ECU,
>> yes & yes.
>>
>>> a
>>> new gauge cluster,
>> not if you use a cable transmission.
>>
>>> and a new AC bracket (where I live, not having AC in
>>> the summer is a significant problem, so I need to keep it functioning).
>>> That's probably at least $2K in parts before you even get started on the
>>> labor to install everything. Hence my earlier comment about trying to
>>> find another CRX that's already had a B16 professionally installed.
>> define "professional"! if you've had this crx for a while and know its
>> history, stick with it. otherwise you have no idea what you're getting
>> into. the most important thing is to find someone to do the swap that's
>> not going to rip you. by the sound of it, half the stuff you've just
>> mentioned is coming from a source that's trying to set you up to put
>> their kids through college.
>
> Well, I haven't talked to anyone yet about doing this, I'm just at the
> point of doing research online to see what's involved. Most of the swap
> sites I've looked at state that new motor mounts are required to plug a
> B16 into a CRX, and the favored choice seems to be Hasport.

i haven't done a b16 swap so am not an authority, but some of the motor
mount stuff is more to do with having the lump anchored more firmly
rather than /needing/ to do it for positioning. if you can, check honda
part numbers and compare.

> As far as
> axles, again, given the significant power increase, I've not seen too
> many recommendations for using the D16/D15 axles, and I was also under
> the impression that they didn't bolt directly up to a B16.

on some of the hybrids, there can be shaft length differences which
necessitate different shafts - don't get suckered into the need to do it
for the extra power thing. /any/ stock shaft the right size will do the
job - the question is, how long it lasts. unless you're racing all the
time, stock shafts will be fine.

>
> But yeah, your point about "professional" is well-taken - there's no
> real way to know if modifications of this sort were done correctly
> unless you've done them yourself or you have a shop you can implicitly
> trust to do the job you ask them to do without screwing you over. I'm
> definitely not interested in building a show car, or trying to squeeze
> as much power as possible out of a setup that spends more time being
> tuned and repaired than being driven. I'm more interested in building
> the CRX that it seems like Honda everywhere but in the US, namely, a
> naturally-aspirated, B16-powered one with somewhere between 160-200hp
> that will be driven daily. However...

zc. twin overhead cam.
http://www.nippon-motors.com/honda.htm
google for others.
getting 200hp out of a 1.6 is hard work and i'm not aware of any stock
solutions that do that. custom solutions and/or turbos will cost you,
but they'll do the job. and if power is what you want, why stop at 200hp?
http://www.theoldone.com/articles/badtothebone/

>
>> find out if the zc will pass your local emissions laws, then do the zc
>> swap. that motor is cheap, hella fast [160hp from a 1600 motor], and a
>> straight bolt-in. then you can keep everything else. and be careful
>> who you ask!!! talk with a smog person. here in ca, we have "test
>> only" stations that are forbidden to do work on the vehicles so have no
>> interest in trying to sell you on stuff you don't need. my local guy is
>> a honda fan and was delighted to me about what i can and can't do for
>> egr systems if i want to do mods without getting the vehicle refereed.
>>
>> one last thing: if you want to be cheap, just get the si cam and swap it
>> into your d15. you're only losing 97cc's. you could probably do that
>> yourself. better yet, get an hot aftermarket cam. no problems with
>> a/c, vtec, transmission, mounts, etc., etc. do it with the engine still
>> in the car.
>
> Again, good points. A ZC would certainly be easier, and a lot cheaper,
> but I assume you're talking about a tuned one? I've never heard of a
> stock ZC with 160hp.

ok, maybe i was confusing it with some of the b16's...

> I'm in Texas, so the smog laws are not nearly as
> much of an issue as they are in CA.

zc!

>
> I'm still wondering exactly what it is that I have under the hood in my
> car - it's starting to sound like someone blew the original 1.6 motor
> and either swapped in a D15 or used a D15 block and crank with perhaps
> some D16 internals to get it running again.

that's a lot of work - they probably just threw in the d15 - as is
indicated by the timing belt.

>
> Thanks for the advice - maybe I'll start with a ZC swap and see how long
> it takes me to get bored with that. :-)
>
> Dave
>
>

if you're going to go fast, consider your ability to stop appropriately,
especially if the lump is heavier. integra calipers/10.25" brake disks
are bolt-on, and the 15/16" master cylinder and larger brake booster
from the 90-91 civic ex has the extra volume necessary for the bigger
front pistons with no brake line bending.

On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article ,
"Dave Garrett" > wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>> In article >,
>> Dave Garrett > wrote:
>
>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>
>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>> what you were buying.
>>
>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>> interests. You're on your own.
>>
>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>
>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>
> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>
> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
> day.
>
> Dave
>

So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
**15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
it?

Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.

E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article ,
> "Dave Garrett" > wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>> In article >,
>>> Dave Garrett > wrote:
>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>> what you were buying.
>>>
>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>
>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>
>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>
>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>> day.
>>
>> Dave
>>
>
> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove it
> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you bought
> it?
>
> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>
buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
don't care /what/ edmunds say.

jim beam wrote:

> E Meyer wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article ,
>> "Dave Garrett" > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dave Garrett > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test
>> drove it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it?
>> Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale
> at $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring
> off the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i
> don't care /what/ edmunds say.


Hell, even my '82 Civic beater has a low retail of over $1K.

OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
exactly is in it???

JT

"jim beam" > wrote in message
t...
>E Meyer wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article ,
>> "Dave Garrett" > wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Dave Garrett > wrote:
>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>
>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>> not
>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>
>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>
>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>
>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>> day.
>>> Dave
>>>
>>
>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>> it
>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>> bought
>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>> $704.
>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>
> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
> care /what/ edmunds say.

I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
the offer will be about $50.

E. Meyer wrote:
> "jim beam" > wrote in message
> t...
>> E Meyer wrote:
>>>
>>> On 1/25/07 9:28 PM, in article ,
>>> "Dave Garrett" > wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article >,
>>>> says...
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Dave Garrett > wrote:
>>>>>> And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
>>>>>> This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>>>>> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
>>>>> what you were buying.
>>>>>
>>>>> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's
>>>>> not
>>>>> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
>>>>> interests. You're on your own.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
>>>>> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
>>>> As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
>>>> idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
>>>> between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
>>>> now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
>>>> shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
>>>>
>>>> What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
>>>> misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
>>>> well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
>>>> day.
>>>> Dave
>>>>
>>> So, to make sure I understand this: You have owned this car for ** 15 **
>>> years and just now you find out it doesn't have the engine you thought it
>>> had and you are all bent out of shape about it? I assume you test drove
>>> it
>>> **15** years ago and were satisfied with the power it had before you
>>> bought
>>> it? Edmunds.com lists the current trade-in value of a 1990 CRX Si at
>>> $704.
>>> Changing the engine would cost more than the car is worth and result in a
>>> car that is still 17 years old and isn't worth any more than $704.
>>>
>> buddy, come to the san francisco bay area, list a stock crx si for sale at
>> $704 and tell me how many calls you get on it. your phone will ring off
>> the hook for months afterwards. $704? that's a complete joke - i don't
>> care /what/ edmunds say.
>
> I can't speak for San Francisco, but around here (Dallas area) I have found
> the Edmunds numbers to be a maximum you can only aspire to. You did notice
> that it is the trade-in value, not suggested retail? My experience has been
> if you drive into a dealer with a 17 year old car of any type or pedigree,
> the offer will be about $50.
>
>
yeah, and all the service techs take them home to sell on the private
market for a good deal more. except the crx's - they keep those. the
dealer near where i live always has a bunch of crx's out the back where
the staff park.

"Grumpy AuContraire" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> OTOH, how can someone have a car for that long and not be aware of what
> exactly is in it???
>
> JT
>
>

And does it matter now, if it wasn't a problem all those years?