Is Honda dead? You see It looks like so, but they still try to produce Type-r's... but then it does smell rotten!

It's Halloween season, so its time for some creepy stories.

I've been a Honda fan for long.

I loved the B16A EG6 and EK9 civics :

Both 1.6 with 160 PS

... the B18 EK9 CTR and DC2 ITR:

Both 1.8 with 200 PS

....I almost got a divorce because of the brilliant EP3 CTR:

a 2.0 with 200 PS

... and really sad to know the DC5 Integra TypeR, would not come to Europe (but I do get why...I mean... EU treats you bad -> they deserve punishment!):

a 2.0 with 210 PS

... And hey... the NSX... oh the NSX! break-time for some ME time, in the bathroom, with this:

3.2 with 290 PS (could do better, but it was the first port of VTEC to V engines. VTEC was designed for Inline layouts)

AND I'm back! 

I'm back with you. I'm such an Honda fan that, the moment my divorce came through, I brought my S2000 (which I still hold today), and I never sold the EP4 Civic Cdti my new wife had (its one of the daily family cars).

To me, Honda was on the right track, while Renault went the easy way and VW group, Peugeot and alike followed Renault.

In essence Honda opted for FINE engineering to develop 2.0 4 cylinder engines with VTEC solution to aim for High RPM, while all others just turbocharged the 2.0 4 cylinder engines and aimed for torque.

The Displacement urban myth:

You see, any american v8 fan will tell you that there is no replacement for displacement.

But then, the same people that claim this, drive cars with 5 liter engines that produces less 500 Bhp TODAY.

We can Make the math simple for you, so you have an IDEA of efficiency in producing power, and compare it to the vehicles from that age.

Year	Model	Layout	Size	PS	Torque	PS/liter	Torque/liter	Max RPM
2000	Mustang	V8	5.4	385	522	71.29	96.66	6000
2000	Mustang	V8	4.6	260	409	56.52	88.91	6000
2000	Mustang	V6	3.8	190	298	50	78.42	6000
2000	Corvette	V8	5.6	344	483	61.42	86.25	6200
2000	Viper	V10	8.0	450	664	56.25	83	6200
2000	Civic TypeR	IL4	2.0	200	193	100	96.5	8250
2000	S2000	IL4	2.0	240	210	120	105	9200
1989	Civic VTI	IL4	1.6	160	150	100	93.75	8200
1999	Integra TypeR	IL4	1.8	200	181	111.11	100.55	9000
2000	Golf GTI	IL4T	2.0T	200	280	NA	NA	6800
2000	Megane RS	IL4T	2.0T	221	300	NA	NA	6700

So as you can clearly see by the table, THE REPLACEMENT for DISPLACEMENT is called EFFICIENCY, and that is the measure of Fine engineering, not the clumsy stuff that the auto industry now sells as engineered products.

Some old guy will tell you:

an engine is a pump and they are closer to be right that the 'there is no replacement for displacement redneck'. 

An engine takes in air and fuel, burns that fuel and produces energy that in translates into movement (kinetic energy) within a combustion cycle. But this is half the equation! It needs to be able to deliver this mechanical energy from the explosion, without self destructing, to the drive-train.

But you can accomplish this with controlling the production of mechanical work. 

You can either have more air into the engine by :

    - Increasing it's size (the american way)

    - Adding a turbo (the European way) 

    - By making it work more cycles per minute (the motorcycle way, the F1 way and the good OLD Honda way).

Now, again this is only part of the story. The way this mechanical energy is delivered is also important, and influence the design of the engine. For instance, you can design for torque, to drive an heavy car, or for power to drive a lighter car.

In the end the design decision goes like this:

Are you aiming for Power or torque?

    Two things influence here:

        1 -  MPS (mean piston speed) - There is a limit of friction that parts endure before melting...and cycles of constant change in direction the piston can endure before disintegrating.

        2 - Scale of physics - The longer the leverage, the easier to break a part, consequently the beefier it needs to be, consequently, the heavier it needs to be, consequently the more inertia it generates.

    From this point on, the design will be:

        OverSquare - Bigger bore than stroke

        Square - Equal bore and stroke

        UnderSquare - Bigger Stroke than Bore

The following image from wikipedia should provide a visible example:

    So while designing, you should consider :

        Power bound design - Oversquare engine( more bore and less stroke...like an f1 engine)

        Torque bound design - UnderSquare engine )more stroke and less bore...like a diesel engine)

        Compromised design - Square engine (like a normal daily driver that also likes spirited driving).

Obvious advantages and disadvantages come form these designs, but the examples are clear:

    - Wanna go track racing (or mountain pass racing), you will desire usable engine rpm's or you:ll be losing precious time to shifting back and forth. 

    - Need to pull the weight of the mini-van, the kids, dog, luggage and infotainment system? go torque and even think diesel then!

    - You need to get to work and then shred the tires on your way back home to, at least have 20 minutes of joy that day? Compromise and save some money for the radar detector! Having thought like that make you a maniac vandal in this day and age.

So the compromise isn't really for track? what about my love for the EP3 CTR with a Square engine? 

Well it really depends. If then track is Nurburgring, with those enormous straights and the need to accelerate out of corners to make good lap times, the EP3 with the i-VTEC is the thing to go for, 

but if you go Tskuba, or Suzuka, then the s2000 will give you a tremendous advantage with the extra rpm and no need to change gear so often.

So there you go... a Compromise can give you some interesting track times, but if it's hardcore club-racing, the oversquare will give you better engine powerband to use, and not lose time shifting.

So what do you mean with torque is for your minivan!?

No place in "your book" for the gasoline-turbo engine? sure there is... but this then leads to the next part of the equation : the drive train.

A rear wheel drive turbo is an inherently unstable design (unless there is a very precise control of boost and fueling), a front wheel drive turbo design is another problematic design...you just can't floor it mid-turn...or you will end up playing off-road racers down hill and upside down!

But if you place a normal engine on a 4wd chassis, well it will turn like bonkers, but will feel... dull. HOWEVER, a 4wd TURBO gasoline engine...well that's a mach made in heaven!

That is why you love the Subaru Impreza GT, or the Lancer Evolution, or the Escort Cosworth, or the Focus RS(last one... not the FWD ones)... my point being : A hell of a marriage, a hell of a car!

So you have endured my rambling so far, 

...let's talk why Honda as doing the right thing and not follow the Renault trend:

The K20 and K24 engines that are standard to the EP3 Type-R and DC5 Integra, where a Square engine design, with i-VTEC, meaning that it had the VTEC for crazy power and revs, but also the I part to maximize low end torque pre-VTEC.

Sure the European Civic Type-r had 200PS the Japanese one had 215PS (better fuel means better pistons for higher compression), but several tuners have produced 260PS out of the production engine, and the BTCC CTR where running 300PS.

4 Piston has built K20's that handle 11.000RPM and over 400PS and K24s that produce 500PS NA and scream beyond 11.000RPM 

This means there was a way forward with this engine. A path of engineering and craftsmanship... something that has defined Honda in the past.

And that is the main point of this article - The way to produce power.

Back in 2000, Honda put some real engineering to product 2.0 engines that could NA produce over 200 PS and next to the same numbers in torque. 

VW, had to boost their 2.0 engine to produce the same amount of power, and more torque. Renault used the same concept and boosted the MRS engine to 221. 

Boosting an engine is easy! Beef up the rods and screw a turbo and bigger injectors to the engine! I mean, my 7 yo kid could do this!

On the other hand, making an engine rev beyond 6000 rpm regularly and not self destruct, THAT ladies and gentle man, requires engineering knowledge and precision craftsmanship in the production line. 

Honda has chosen the superior way of doing things wen the rivals had gone the cheap way.

Now the math shown before is not usable for a turbo engine!

A Turbo, uses the exhaust gases to spin a turbine that forces air into the engine. 

So an 4 stroke, NA 2.0, at open throttle, uses 2.0 l of air at 1BAR every 2 rotations. 

If you add a turbo that has a 1BAR boost, then same engine would be consuming 4 liters of air on the same period. 

This is, however not linear. The air is a fluid and as it compresses it heats, if it then passes through hot piping, say, like a turbo charger connected to the exhaust at over 800 centigrade degrees, it heats plenty. 

Heat messes air density, so those 4.0 liters of air would not have the same amount of oxygen molecules at 140 degrees as they have at 30 degrees centigrade. 

Because of this, any turbo system cools down air by passing it through an inter cooler or a charge cooler. Inter-cooler efficiency means business, but factory inter-coolers are rarely the best out there and they are built for price and not efficiency. 

So a table would have to correct the boost gains as a partial of the inter- cooler efficiency, as:

Corrected Displacement = Displacement * ((1+boost)*(Inter-cooler efficiency/100))

Year	Model	Layout	Size	PS	Torque	Boost	Inter-cooler efficiency	Corrected Displacement	PS/liter	Torque/liter	Max RPM
2016	Golf 7 GTI	IL4T	2.0T	230	350	1	75%	3	76.66	116.66	6800
2014	Megane RS3	IL4T	2.0T	275	360	1.5	75%	3.75	73.33	96	6700
2000	Civic TypeR	IL4	2.0	200	193	NA	NA	NA	100	96.5	8250
2000	S2000	IL4	2.0	240	210	NA	NA	NA	120	105	9000
1989	Civic VTI	IL4	1.6	160	150	NA	NA	NA	100	93.75	8200
1999	Integra TypeR	IL4	1.8	200	181	NA	NA	NA	111.11	100.55	9000
2000	Golf 5 GTI	IL4T	2.0T	200	280	0.82	70%	2.55	78.43	109.8	6800
2000	Megane RS2	IL4T	2.0T	221	300	0.7	75%	2.55	86.66	117.64	6700

And the Table should clear all doubts about the the efficiency of Turbos. 

If you compare a V8 4.0 with a 2.0 turbo equivalent to 4.0, the turbo is clearly more efficient in both less moving parts, weight, inertia, and produce the same results, but with a variance that allows for low speed economy.

But if you compare it to a VTEC engine, then the edge goes out the door as the turbo is, in fact adding displacement, but at the expense of engine response and usable power band.

So Why is Honda dead?

Well, after the glorious EP3, the FN2 lost the rear suspension to a more economic design and the car gained weight without gaining engine power... so ALL BAD NEWS!

Honda came back with the FD2 and FD2 Mugen RR, but only for the Japanese Market. 

For the poorly behaved EU people, Honda decided to sell mediocrity, so they added a turbo and produced the FK2 with 306 PS and reduced the rev limiter to 8000 rpm. I mean!!! JUST GET THOSE ENGINES FROM BTCC you dumb idiots!

As this seems a bad idea and europeans prefer bad ideas that claim not to hurt birds and trees on paper, the FK8 came our the same way! 2.0 turbo and more pressure on the turbo for 320PS and 7000rpm rev limit!

This blind pursue of mediocrity and going towards stupid regulations, managed to have Honda produce a car that, although it is named Type-R, if driver hard on the track (as it's always been the design) will over-heat! 

Do you want to know why? Someones (other than an engineer) designed the cylinder head with an integrated exhaust manifold with the exhaust gases passages surrounded by the same water cooling ducts that the engine uses to cool. This means that on situations with heavy stress but not extreme air flow through the radiator... like say.. a race track, the radiator function gets overwhelmed and the car overheats! BRILLIANT! I'm sure it's excellent for emissions and to maintain the catalytic converter at it's best but then what about the poorly designed car, being marketed as a race-car and... not one???

So Honda was going in the right direction and away from Renault and VW... but then turned a 180 turboed the once glorious K20... and manage to make it worse that non turbo while trying to copy-cat Renault and VW. I can't compute! I just can't!

And there we go! Honda is now, in fact, dead ! it's just that, no one seems to have told'em so, and as such it wonders around like a rotten zombie. SAD SAD SAD.

When Engineers stop being engineers and start being... well something else!

We live in the world where, much to blame the EU and its lefty majority for, the automotive industry is being punished by absurd laws and regulations.

Its a world where idiotic minds like greta the brat and elon musk strive, by tapping into the lack of knowledge the majority suffers from and twists the narrative towards their own personal interests.

Together with harsher fuel taxation, harsher motoring limitations and an investment into a machine of ticketing motorists (as if they didn't pay enough tax already), created a youth less and less interested in the thrills of driving a proper vehicle on the open road.

 It's quite a shame, really, but it is the world most automakers need to produce products for.

This absurdly retrograde reality, generates a sentiment in the auto industry that producing mediocre products, is ok as long as they earn money while watching the world burn.

So far, it's sad, it's disgusting, and makes me feel like humans deserve the asteroid... and have been deserving it for quite some time now.

However,

It was my understanding that, some engineers where still working at most car manufacturers. Sure... bound and tied up in the basement with gaggles so they could not insult economists and marketeers during meetings, but still engineers.

Then Ford unveils the 3 cylinder 1.0 ecoboost... and gets claims as engine of the year!?!?!? corruption alarm!!!

I never took interest in this, as it is a cylinder too short of my minimum acceptable engine size. 

I obviously steered AWAY from it and evidently recommended all my friends to buy the 4 cylinder fiestas while they where available.

Some months into this crazy nonsense...

... and i manage go get an episode on engine disassembly of this same engine, on youtube...HERE. 

The video starts with : this was difficult to find, you never find these out there in any junkyard as they are highly requested.

THIS immediately triggered my brain: Why? 3cyl.. useless piece of ... and if there are none for second hand parts market then: Either they run forever and so slow that no one ever crashes. Or they all DIE prematurely making them hard to find functional and highly requested as such.

The introduction also said : "this is one of those infamous wet timing belt type of engine".

WAAAIIIIIIT a minute. Belt? wet? nahhh not possible.

As the disassembly continued i was astonished with the design i was whiteness. 

In truth, that engine and some other engines form PSA group (and some more brands are drifting into this absurd trend) use WET BELTS.

WOW

Let me take some time to explain:

There are mainly 2 designs to connect your crankshaft with the valve train, creatively called engine timing system:

  - Timing chain- a metal chain, much like your bicycle chain, with metal dented wheels. Evidently, metal on metal will require lubrication, so those are naturally wet:

 - Timing belt - made out of a rubber dented belt with fabric and metal reinforcements. Obviously this last system is dry:

Why obviously?

Funny you should ask: Engine oil attacks rubber, engine temperature attack rubber, engine oil get more acidic with usage and as such: hot acidic engine oil AGGRESSIVELY attack rubber. Rubber gets cracks, and hot acidic engine oil reaches fabric and metal inside the belt...and, for your surprise, again - It attacks those components too.

Timing belt's are´t forever... they need service:

How do you know the timing belt is new:

... or old:

...or just bad:

... or maybe "So bad you shouldn't start the car":

.... or the... shit, too late!

Now let's compare an old NORMAL timing belt, with an old WET timing belt:

... or even a BAD NORMAL timing belt with a BAD WET timing belt:

... or maybe a "don't start the car" NORMAL timing belt with a WET one:

Finally, a comparison between the belt as new and as it comes out of the engine when replaced:

It's not rocket science! right!? You don't need an engineering degree to see what's wrong here, now, do you?

SOOOO 

a very fast and easy conclusion:if you want to have a WET timing system, the chain will live happy with this setup.

If you what to use BELTs, you CAN'T use the wet system!

It's fairly straight trough!

You don't need an engineering degree to make this decision once you've read these VERY SIMPLE characteristics of the both systems and reaction to oil.

The remaining video...

... was just a bad-to-worse critique of this absolutely stupid design:

- oil pump scavenger blocked with bits of rubber from the timing belt that disintegrated.

- bearings and journals scratched by lack of oil pressure...because the oil pump was driven by another wet, rubber belt!

- obvious engine catastrophic failure due to lack of oil pressure, but plenty of cases out there are due  to premature timing belt failure and scavenger blocking... I mean talk about a perfect storm.

This is becoming such an issue, that Peugeot is selling a measuring tool to check in the belt has swollen enough (by absorbing oil) that need replacement! I mean... how ridiculous can this be?

Ok... 

we've established the design is absurd, that lot's of people buy these engines either new or second hand because they disintegrate themselves, but why!?

Easy to maintain? 

NO! way way worse!

The belt will live less(duh) and even the Kevlar reinforced ones don't really manage as long as any dry belt or a wet chain!

To change the timing belt you need to dismantle engine panels and re-assemble with new seals(as opposed to a few screws and plastic panels on dry belts).

You will need to regularly remove the carter and check the oil-pump scavenger for molten or disintegrated rubber. 

Well...

... there is one and one justification only for this : brands what to sell you a competitive product, cheap as the crap it is, then squeeze all your money out in unnecessary maintenance complexity or, if you decide not to play the game, new engines every now and then.

So...

...it's clearly an economist or marketer decision. Point to which, my question becomes: What where these engineers thinking about? or then...are they still engineers at all?