The problems will be easily solved; when Toyota and Honda start using them with regularity in their “important” models. Models like the Civic and the Accord, the Camry and the Corolla and Tacoma. Toyota has lagged behind Ford and GM in the implementation of turbos resulting in lower gas mileage and power for their size. As yet, they still seem to have not lagged behind in reliability…maybe to the contrary.
Db, you neglected to add the “cut and paste”. {
@Marnet,liked the the Bohn ads,dont think the critequer knew what they were talking about all the time,pretty clever I think(the snow plow was obvisously a train snow plow)-Kevin
Curious about the minor differences in specs on two engines.
What, if any, would be the real world difference?
Both engines 2.5L I-4 (NOT turbo)
Engine A: 178 hp @ 6,000 rpm with torque 170 ft/lbs @ 4,100 rpm
Engine B: 175 hp @ 6,000 rpm with torque 175 ft/lbs @ 4,500 rpm
mountainbike
I didn’t neglect to add the cut and paste
Here it is again, in quotation marks this time
“All blocks are the same (whether they’re three- or four-cylinder).”
Please read the article again.
I had to read it and reread it a few times before I realized just what they seemed to be saying
I still think it’s possible the article’s author may have made a mistake
A 4 cylinder block with an empty cylinder still weighs more than a traditional 3 cylinder block,which is physically smaller and weighs less
They’re so common here it’s easy to forget that Honda is one of the world’s smaller carmakers and can’t afford to take too many chances. Their fours are as fine as any made and efficient and powerful enough for now. Selling almost entirely smaller cars means meeting CAFae requirements won’t be as hard for them without elaborate technology. Ford and GM have to squeeze out every MPG they possibly can. With an Accord that already gets 40 MPG on the highway Honda is in good shape. It wouldn’t be surprising for them to team up with someone else to cut development costs. GM has a historic relationship with them and could certainly benefit from better small engines. They rarely do well in comparisons. What I’d really love to see is Honda and Mazda working together, as Honda makes the smoothest fours and Mazda the most efficient. It isn’t likely to happen as either one is more likely to be seeking a larger partner that isn’t such a direct competitor.
Honda with GM, Mazda with Ford makes historic sense, but Ford’s split with Mazda was supposedly messy and left a lot of Mazda execs angry with how it happened. I think it was a bad mistake by Ford, and they may be wondering about that, too, with Mazda having such interesting cars and engines that easily beat Ford’s current small engines. Ford of Europe’s engineers could have been told to go away until they had something as good to offer.
Well you never know Honda worked with Isuzu,for awhile-what I like about Honda is that their componets seem to be of an acceptable quality-Kevin
@Marnet - you would likely notice no difference between those two. The different cars they’re in would be a much bigger difference.
Kevin–The extent of Honda and Isuzu working together was a simple–very limited–business arrangement.
At the time, one company (Honda) had no SUV to sell, and the other (Isuzu) had no minivan.
Thus, we wound up with the Honda Passport (which was no different and no better than the mediocre Isuzu Rodeo), and the Isuzu Oasis, which was a poorly-disguised Honda Odyssey.
There was no technology exchange between the two companies, and their agreement merely amounted to placing the other company’s badges on vehicles coming down their assembly line.
Yeah, the Passport did wonders for Honda’s vaunted reputation. This cooperation is no different then what is practiced throughout the motor vehicle world. Saabarus and GM SAAB SUVs and Honda power Saturns, Geo Prisms, Metros and a bunch of Kia/ Hyundai examples of in breeding proliferate the automotive world. In this world, branding is more important then who actually manufacturers it. We are living in a world of labels and logos because society is moving too fast to get to really know any car…let alone any people. Gee, who is that person I woke up to this morning and what is the name of that car parked in my drive ? Heck, our new car is nothing more then a rebadge of one of these minus the rear mounted turret.
Db, can you post the entire paragraph with the statement in context?
@VDC,thanks I believe Isuzu got the better half of that deal,during my drives(at work) I see a lot of new cars and I think if the ID badge was missing,I would have trouble telling some of them apart-Kevin
Here is the paragraph in question
Interestingly each variant of these engines feature the same bore center, which clocks in at 81 mm. Additionally the bore size is identical at 74 mm. Greater displacement is achieved either by adding an extra cylinder or increasing the stroke. All blocks are the same (whether they’re three- or four-cylinder).
I’d bet $100 that the three doesn’t have 4 cylinders.
If the three doesn’t have 4 cylinders, then the author of the article made a mistake, or was misinformed
No way they’d waste the space and weight and cost. Easy to reduce it by one cylinder.
Db, they’re not saying it’s the same block. They’re saying that it’s a three cylinder block with exactly the same interface parameters. It allows the use of the same pistons, bearings sets, connecting rods, peripheral component mounts, water pump, cam and crank seals, camshaft drive components, etc, and I’d guess that the heads were also designed to use the same valvetrain components with the exception of the camshaft, which likely has the same lobes, bearing surfaces, and spacings but uses one less set. Obviously, because of the different crank timings, the crankshaft, cam shaft lobe timing, distributor, and components that time the spark, valves, and injectors will have to be different.
They are not doing a very good job of not saying it. Just poor writing here. They are separate blocks using the same parameters.
mountainbike
I hear what you’re saying, but the author LITERALLY wrote “All blocks are the same”
The author did a poor job explaining it. They should have said “All blocks are the same . . . but that’s not exactly what I meant”
In other words, these engines use the same block, kind of like the old GM 4.3 V6 and the 5.7 V8 “used the same block” . . . same pistons, rods, bore center, etc.
I heard horror stories about GM cars that made it all the way to the showroom floor with some empty cylinders (missing a piston and the rod). Apparently, the dealer mechanics had a bad feeling about the persistent misfire and 0 compression. Upon tearing down the engine, they discovered one or more empty cylinders.
I believe this supposedly happened in the 1980s.
Perhaps some of the other guys have more details
This horror story could explain a 3 cylinder engine using the same block as a 4 cylinder engine
LOL . . . ?!
Simple model swapping is not very interesting, but has been around for decades. Mitsubishi gave Chrysler a steady stream of small cars when they needed them and Mitsubishi wasn’t yet selling under their own brand.
With current sales it won’t be long before they’re back to that state. No, the miserable Mirage is not going to help. It has nothing going for it but a low price, and much better cars are not much more. Mitsubishi needs some nice cars to lure people in. They used to make some OK cars. Don’t know what went wrong.