Honda Engines

>>17330343
Gas mileage is more in demand than it was then, especially since they can't rely on a car being lightweight after all the safety standards to serve as their way for achieving gas mileage rather than a well engineered engine.

>>17330343
But what about the torque.

Besides that fuck Honda. They lost their way a long time ago.

>>17330351
Pretty much. Civics (even type R's) can get 25-35 mpg while new ex-t's get 30-40 mpg. VX's got better mileage than most hybrids today.

>>17330360
L15B7 gets 162 ft-lbs while B16B had 118 ft-lbs. Although the B16B had an additional 3000 rpm to play with.

>>17330343
Low end torque and a restrictive head designed for fuel economy

Does anyone on /o/ know anything about engines besides just what's on the spec sheet?
The rest of the car makes a huge difference too, the Civic Turbo with a fucking CVT can out run last years Si despite the 30+bhp power gap

Now imagine the power gains with a tune and a ported head

>>17330550
Still shows that even after all that technology, Honda barely improved over itself from 20 years ago.

Also of course it's worse: civics went to shit after 2000.

>>17331327
you are retarded and think it was made for power

thats your problem

>>17331351
It gets 5mpg over a 20 yo engine while producing less power, shitdick.

>>17331362
Civics in the 90s got 35mpg? God damn I wish I knew back then

>>17331362
wat

a EK9 Civic Type R would be lucky to get 30 in its tin can body

1.5T gets over 40 easy in a heavier car

for kicks a modern Type R gets close to 40

>>17330343
Man, you think their road car engines are bad, you should check out their floundering F1 reattempt...

>>17331370
I've hit 54mpg routinely in an '85 crx....

>>17332281
Pretty sure this modern engine could do even better if it weren't strapped down with emissions and safety bullshit

>>17332281
>muh hf with 80 hp and 2000lbs curb weight got gud mpg

File: 47697_151729668190268_100000597068496_346991_5321726_n.jpg (114KB, 537x720px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 537x720px

>>17333649
92, fucknugget.

54mpg brofist.

File: IMG_5050.jpg (192KB, 2048x1141px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 2048x1141px

>>17330343
*pisses*

File: Car42.jpg (62KB, 768x576px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 768x576px

>>17333649
hell yeah it did

>>17330343
What I don't get is why they can't make the insane head designs that they were known for for thirty fucking years
All that engineering wizard fucking gone forever

>>17335462
?

>>17330550

>does anyone on /o/ know

No.

>>17335462
80ft/lbs of torque in a 3200lb modern car is a bad combination... 200hp (on a good day) at 9000rpm is far from insane.

>>17336844
>$2300
>anime stickers
>rice parts

eeek. You'll still probably write it off before it gives you any issues though.

>>17336809
How is that so much different from a GS-R?

>>17330360
>long time ago
6 years ago. That's not a long time.