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.

VW... you are stupid... ballsy but stupid... and also right.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34325005


Shocked by the VW scandal, I decided to post this article.

I can't believe how stupid they here, how ballsy they were and ultimately how right they are.

Politicians, in their infinite stupidity think that the world will be better if the clean cars (gasoline engined) are less, and dirty cars (diesel engined) are more and more controlled by regulations that ultimately will kill the engine power making you pull it harder or buy a bigger engine.... ending in more pollution anyway.

There is a why to this: tax! More tax means more money for them... of course the idea of taxing a car that pollutes like a gasoline engine car, is to plant more trees and green areas to compensate... but that money is deviated... lets just say else where.

There is the other matter... by taxing gasoline cars, people flee to diesel ones, and that constitutes a bigger problem as diesel emissions include a lot of carbon particles... this is worse then gas, so the politicians add regulations and taxes to try to baffle the resulting pollution... no trees from taxes still, just more money.

So the game is: Make it as bad as possible and then tax on it and make fortunes.

In order to do that, every car, upon certification to a specific market will have pass a set of tests including the emissions test.

So far so good. We knew that already. The problem is that VW also knows that and ultimately thinks "I don't really care for stupid policies, and if you are making money on us, than I'll fool you".

So now for the news:
Every car that is fitted with ESP will not allow you to properly test it on a rolling dyno. The 2 front wheels spinning while the 2 rear wheels are stopped will immediately trigger EPS into thinking you are trying to accelerate on a slippery surface and dose the engine and apply the brakes... So to solve this issue every manufacturer has input into it's car's software a "test mode" that disables ESP actions.
Now if you are a manufacturer and you want to fool the emissions test, this presents an opportunity, however, if you are going to do that you must really conceal the crafts, as you will be stealing money from governments (the biggest "mafiosos" of them all)  in every car you sell from that point on.

VW did just that! they concealed a way to make their cars pollute 40 to 50 time less if a certain type of parameter was met.

This is not the problem. The problem is that if you are going down this road than you have to make it "look like a bug" in the software.

VW on the other hand coded a set of checks that produce a result...and that can be tracked.

Not that if it was a bug you would be out of trouble... it just makes it easier to explain in court, and that means that, out of the total 18billion fine, you could negotiate your way down to say... half that value!?

In the other words: your VW diesel that claims to produce x co gr/km actually produces 40 or 50 times as much. No worries, it still has that big power from a very small package and that is what you pay for actually.

So this is a big scandal not because it pollutes more, not because they are stealing from the government (and in turn helping you do the same... so now you have that instant karma feeling) but because they where stupid enough to do that in the clumsiest possible way.

Practical results form this stunt?
1 - VW will be fined... hard
2 - VW is stealing from govenrments everytime they sell a diesel car
3 - if you own a VW you have been and are stealing form your government every year when you pay your tax.
4 - VW will have to call back the cars and remap... so be careful! I have no idea how they are going to meet CO emissions while retaining the same power and consumption.
5 - VW stock is history.... sell... yesterday.

HONDA: you killed the brilliant K20A from the type-r and screwed-it-up with a turbo... instead you should have gone for full BTCC race tune to 300bhp NA and fit a jumbo catalytic converter that could be removed and replaced with a test pipe the minute one exits the sales stand. That would be legal, that would be efficient, that would still pollute less than any VW... and we would have loved it.

Test Drive - 2004 Honda Civic 1.7cdti (EP4 chassis)

This a very (very) old post that has been cooking for over 2 years.

There is a reason for this. Firs I tested the car using the standard Michelin energy tires... having driven the Type-r version my immediate impression was: this thing is all over the place! that high roof must really pull the chassis beyond it's limits.
Then, my first recommendation was: change the tires. Go for some proper rubber engineered to grip instead of fuel saving, and then I recommended the Toyo T1-R's I also recommended to increase the 195,60,R15 to a much more sensible 205,55,R15 with reinforced sidewalls to prevent tire wall smash.

The transformation was obvious... having decent road holding from the tires, the chassis actually comes to live and presents all it's magnificent design. Sure it was a bit too high but the stiffness on the tires and the grip was enough to force the chassis into full dynamics (not sure however of it's behavior if you have a transition from good tarmac into a less holding surface).

This was good news but I was out of time and so I had to leave the test... unfinished.

This last 2 months however presented themselves with an opportunity to clock some 10.000Kms on the same car. It was time to to through every type of pavement, road, condition... and check the car properly.

What a surprise. Not a good or a bad surprise but rather a mix.
Chassis wise the car is brilliant... one of the best FWD chassis, period! Grippy and very composed, the lift-off over-steer is controlled with ease and allows for some spectacular drifts...not just for show! Once you've mastered the dynamics of the car, you can keep a very fast pace on any b road. Sure you will kill the front tires fast like any FWD car, but the experience will be involving and with slim to none under-steer.
Turn in is precise and very willingly (surprisingly instantaneous).

Torque-steer however is bad news. I can clearly understand why Honda, having opted for a lower quality, inferior and ultimately cheaper rear suspension design for the new versions of the civic, decided into an improved front suspension design as it was would render anything beyond 150bhp and 200nm/torque problematic. Especially with the worse rear design, the front end would really need to be a charm.

Allow the car to slide a bit further than 20 degrees and you'll feel that the torque for the front wheels will work against you while you steer back when the car starts recovering... unpleasant and eventually dangerous in extreme circumstances. How to sort this out in your own car? kill the rubber bushings and fit some good, hard, polyurethane ones...also buy a bump-steer kit from spoon...now that you are at it, fit a set of coilovers.
That is the single most weird thing about the car. And having a heavy (really heavy) diesel engine, this is more perceptible.

The Diesel engine... not bad for a 1.7 common rail with an old design. The Isuzu unit is robust and bullet proof, but is is very heavy and since it is a diesel, response is something unheard of. So that is the ONE THING that spoils the package. Had this been a RWD it would kill the chassis competence completely (much like the BMW 1 series).

Appart form that it will cruise at 120km/h at 5lts/km (no AC)... and will average 6.2lt/Km in the 10.000km I've tested with mixed city and highway , with AC (with some highway stretches going beyond the 200km/h apparent limit).

The weight of the engine is very perceptible on speed-bumps. The front of the car easily digs into the ground while coping to deal with the front end weight and still remain "decent" in comfort settings.

It is comfortable enough for long trips (over 700km in a row)...clearly not as comfortable as my V70 T5 volvo, but if you compare chassis efficiency and joy vs ride comfort, this will eclipse the volvo anyway... it will eclipse most cars actually.

So this is a good car. Pitty the engine is diesel, so a 1.8i would be better... a lot better... pitty it is so high, to the sports version is the one to go for... and of course, if you manage to source the type-r 2.0 than there is no looking back,

Comparing it with the recent chassis, the EP3/EP4 (EP3 is the Civic Type-R and Civic Si  or sport chassis and the EP4 is the regular car with an extra 20cm of headroom) is the last great Civic to have. So unless you are 70 years old and only drive on motorways, ignore ANY civic beyond the Type-R EP3... and that includes the new "shemale" turbo type-r.

Did the treatment pills work? Is the Auto industry back on the sanity ground?

As you probably know, my view on today's automotive industry is pretty dark.

I'm a purist and as such, Honda going hybrid and 2wd turbo is wrong, toyota going hybrid is wrong... every manufacturer going 2wd turbo is wrong... everything is wrong out there expect maybe for some enlightened souls that mostly work for lotus... and a couple other manufacturers.

The problem? First came the politicians with their stupid taxes, forcing smaller and smaller engines to be produced... then came their policemen with orders to "invoice" and the speed limit made us run highways at parking lot speeds...then came Al-Gore and his army of zombie tree-hugers that killed some of the most brilliant engines ever made...and finally came the economists and mediocre managers that turned the engineering passion into a blind pursue of profit with total disregard for design quality.

These last years, we saw Toyota kill the Supra, Mazda kill the RX7, Honda kill the NSX...and the S2000... and the Civic Type-r...and the integra Type-r, BMW killed the glorious NA in-line six of the M3, Saab... well no more Saab and I could continue with the kill list on to the trash produced list starting with all and any hybrid with a battery bigger than a standard car battery.

In truth, we have gone back years in engineering terms. I find my self worried, because I'm now buying cars from no later than 2006... and eventually as the years go by and I need to replace them, I might find my self out of options.

Well It seems from this last week that there might be a salvation in the industry after all.
Behind all that madness and stupidity that produces hybrid crap and cars that are as dull as the advertising stating it pollutes less than your farts, some engineers might actually have survived.

So out of those manufacturers that where extremely hill, Honda make the top of the list. With extra needed care as the "return" they attempted was a copy of the recipe from Renault and VW... stating that such a level of desperation could mean "terminal case".... but I guess that some miracle drug treatment worked and a couple of engineers actually survived. They went to the surviving BIKE department, grabbed a proper NA stratospheric revving engine and put it into a car, then the materials and minimalist design, then the disk brakes and controls... and the result, is a brilliant drivers car.

The Honda 2&4 project is an extreme vision of the same genesis I had with my S2000rr concept...and I love it.

Finally, after years stating that Honda was dead to me, I can say that there is a sign of recovery. There might be resurrection after all.

The other manufacturer is a less complicated case. I mean they did got the Turbo on FWD disease (they got that big) but at least they know what is the proper usage for a cars battery.

FORD was BIG. They has the RS Cosworth... they had 2, the Sierra and the Escort... and for the enthusiast that doesn't want to go sideways, they had the FWD, non turbo XR3i... and they had the brilliant fiestas. Then some designer smoked really bad weed and they entered the "new edge design"! Horrible cars to say the least, but at least the chassis design team where working as good as ever and the ugly cars performed brilliantly... and enginewise... well they turned to Yamaha for those... I mean no argues there.

But then the Escort was gone and the Focus needed to show that it was a true successor (not an easy task).
We waited and Ford unveiled the Focus ST... is this the new Cosworth? let me see... no! it FWD YUCK!
Then came the news that the REAL beast was underway and that the RS would have the T5 volvo engine... this was promissing... and when it came out it was... FWD!?!?!? TURBO?!?!?! Why oh why would FORD put a beast of an 5 cylinder TURBO engine on a FWD car??? And as expected the differential Quaife put there and try to solve the impossible,  generated very violent torque steer. Not just bad... stupid!

And Fords performance car became the much better handling and less power through the front wheels Fiesta!

Then FORD knew about the rehabilitation clinic HONDA had just entered and tried some of the same medicine... and voila!
The all new Ford FOCUS RS 2016 is a 2.3 turbo, BUT it is, as every turbo should, AWD!
Not just that, they beefed it up with active diffs and the computer that controls them has a "drift" mode :) and just to put the cherry on top of the cake, do you know who they used to tune the "Drift mode"?
Ken Block! I mean the guy doesn't drive competitively in rally, but give him a junkyard, unlimited set of tires and replacement cars and time, and he will manage to drive sideways the entire time, even indoors... between pillars... and container towers.... and inside airplanes...under a jumping bike...while in the air...and talking to James May!

Ken Block may not be king of rally but he sure is king of gymkhana ... and having set the RS drift mode, fun is assured :)

Well done Ford... and welcome back...now please continue to take the medication before you create a 500bhp 2.0 triturbo FWD Ka, ok? ok.

The "Honda is back" title and the "She-male picture" effect.

Be careful... explicit language ahead!
When I was a teenager and the internet was sloooow as an 18-wheeler truck, being the brat I've always been, I experienced the wonderful world of internet porn in the soooo very sllllooooow picture loading anxiety way. One day, while waiting for a picture of  naked girl, I was taking my time to appreciate things (no other way as the link was sllloooooow), the girl (so I though) in the picture was covering her face with "her" hair, then the silicone breats came up.. and right when I was so very interested in the remaining part of the picture... well you know what happened just by the "she-male picture effect" in the article title. It was discussing (not because I have anything against she-males) because I was really expecting something else.

Why oh why would I share this traumatic teenager experience (particularly in a car blog)? Well it happened again.
I was browsing magazines today and this came to my hand:

I was immediately excited (just like a teenager waiting for a naked women porn picture). I'm an former Honda lover, but lately Honda managed to do nothing but crap. I mean there is not a single car out of Honda since they stopped the JDM Civic Type-R production.
Every other manufacturer is trying their absolute best to build better cars and Honda managed to go the opposite way.
This Magazine was GREAT NEWS! FINALLY, one of the best brands in the world decided to wake-up from the prolonged coma. NSX was back, rumor of the S2000 replacement and a new Civic Type-R. Groooovy.

Immediately I skipped all the junk pages into the article, searched for the specs and found a chart of the new vs the old Civic Type-r specs. That was wonderful... a chart.
First line: new type-r - 300bhp, old type-r 200bhp    (BRRRRIIILLLIANT!)
Second line : new type-r - 2000cc, old type-r 2000cc    (yeeeahhhhhhh finally some racing specs for the road.)
Third line: new type-r - i-Vtec , old type-r i-Vtec    (obviously... no need to mention this)
Than disaster on the Fourth line: new type-r - TURBO, old type-r N.A.   (WTF?!)
I immediately dropped the magazine to the floor and almost cried in pain... and there you go-> The She-male effect.

This is the second time Honda kills the Type-r!!!
Mk1 was brilliant.
Mk2 was the best ever.
Than, for some reason, while producing Mk3, they decided that the JDM version should be better and the European version should have a cheaper (and worse) suspension and more weight!!! Weird at least.
Now with the Mk4... it's turbo.. I mean -cheap engineering instead of refinement, N.A. response...purity.. naaa just another 2.0 turbo to go after the RCZ, Sirocco and MeganeRS cheap trend.

If at least they had made it 4WD I would understand it... but no! Still FF. I can even say with no reserves that this car has been made to shut Renault up with their "Megan RS Trophy is the fastest FF in The Ring". According to some people from the R&D at Honda, they've done-it... but just like I hated the Megane for not being a pure driving machine... I'll also hate this one. Yes it's a record breaker...yes it's a bullet in the ring (where it was destined to perform)...but forget the refinement and driving experience...no room for those here.
Type-r is now the meaning for: just another engineer's wet dream.

So... Apparently the Megane RS has it's kingdom threatened (no surprise as an engine that revs to 6000 and produces little over 260bhp from 2 liters and a turbo is not a marvel of engineering)... and of course, just like Renault has F1 heritage to help build brilliant chassis, so does Honda...and they also have Indy, and BTCC and so on ... a brilliant FF chassis would come up eventually.
So this new Honda revs 2k beyond the Renault's limits, with better linearity and power delivery... and produces more power... give it a good chassis and you have a winner just on the 2k extra revs in the corners and the almost 40bhp in the straights!

But do I like it? No. It's FF instead of FR, It's turbo without being 4WD... and it was conceived following the EasyWay instead of the Hard-Engineering-and-true-Efficiency-seeking way.
Deception... pure deception. Hope that they remember the original S2000 and NSX on their new versions... or things will really get weird from now on.

Small comment on the new sports Hybrid trend.

I had to copy this text from a post I've just done on a Linkedin thead, discussing the new Ferrari Hybrid news:

I'm much pleased with this NEW hybrid trend. I mean I've always hated the stupid hybrid trend. The lack of engine in a Prius or IMA will make the petrol unit consume more just to drive around; then add 200kg of battery weight (and calculate the impact to mine and process all those heavy metals...and multiply by 2 cause they will have to be recycled some day)...let's face it. It's just a TAX scheme so politicians can charge more for ALL THE OTHER NORMAL CARS, and then use the money with their own V12 engines and private jets instead of applying the TAX in environmental equilibrium measures (like planting trees for instance).
But Lexus got this right the first time. If Hybrid is an environmental nonsense, let's use it for performance, with a small, light battery and an electric assist engine for launch-control torque...and best of all, most governments will charge HALF the tax they did cause it's hybrid.
Porsche did the same but took one step further and decided to mate it with a trajectory computer and make a torque vectoring system.
Audi followed and so did Honda.
Let's wait for the Italians and check it out.
But I must say...FINALLY someone uses the Hybrid for the only thing it's actually good : melting rubber!

The CRZ that kills birds...

...but makes the guy paying for it feel alive and happy.

It's no news, the CR-Z ir FAR from being the acclaimed CRX replacement.
I tend to think that If they called it Honda Green, or Honda TweetyBird...or even Honda CRU, I wouldn't hate it as much.
But Honda called the CRZ the "Next Step from the CRX", hence the "Z". That was just offensive. It seems like the company that created the CRX forgot their own product, or the new guys working there never ever understood the "old"guys project at all.
The CRX was about Lightness and Nimbleness coupled with a state of the art engine that pulled out 100bhp/tonne in it's best evolution.
Years latter, Honda managed to:
   - kill lightness with a huge battery pack!?!?
   - kill nimbleness with a high-stance car instead of a LOW-to-the-GROUND sports one.
   - killed the engine power using a IMA unit that pumps out less than 80Bhp/litter and a joking 114bhp top + 14bhp with electric assistance.

So, is Honda selling worse a product marketed as a better one?
NO, and YES.
No, the CRZ is not worse than the CRX if you are a bird and feel that the CO emissions is disturbing your libido function.
No, the CRZ is not worse than the CRX if you have an accident and absolutely need to walk out of it with nothing but an headache.
No, the CRZ is not worse than the CRX if you think that a sports car should have the same economy as a diesel vw lupo.
No, the CRZ is not worse than the CRZ if you like that odd rear-end
but...
Yes the CRZ is far worse than the CRX if you like cars
Yes the CRZ is far worse than the CRX if you think a sports car needs an engine
Yes the CRZ is far worse than the CRX if you like a nimble and light chassis
Yes the CRZ is far worse than the CRX if you like to lightly tune up your car to your personal preference.
Yes the CRZ rear end is ugly and difficult to live-with compared to the CRX.

To make a long story short (quoting my self talking to a friend that brought the CRZ), Honda makes you pay for the car, but built it having the bird and pigeons in mind, NOT YOU!
He replied: But I've already brought the thing...
 ...Is there a solution for this mess?
Sure!
No need to panic.
When Honda released the Eighth generation Civic, the European version on the coupé was a disgrace. The car has lost it's independent rear suspension that made the EP3 (7th gen) chassis so good.
However, the 8th gen sedan had the same EP3 independent rear suspension...but was an IMA hybrid!
Weird! Honda puts the brilliant K20A engine in the Coupe type-r with a bad suspension...and the poor stupid IMA hybrid in the sedan, but with the best rear suspension the civic has ever had.
So how would one save this car? Well Honda may be selling crappy products, but they tend to do so on the European market only, cause the Japanese Domestic Market version of the 8th gen Type-r has the brilliant K20 Engine (pumping over 220bhp from it's Natural Aspirated 2 litre engine) coupled with the sedan chassis that suffers an extreme diet.

The very same approach could be used on the CRZ.
Dump the batteries, dump the IMA engine (maybe it will be useful to build an epi-lady or something like that) and fit the K20A with the 6speed Gearbox into it, then lower and stiffen the car.

Now I've been saying this since I've seen the first car specs with a claimed 200bhp from an extreme IMA unit... but Honda failed to deliver.

Meet the K24 CRZ from Eibach

It's pointless to tune a chassis without removing unnecessary weight. And a Car with 200kg of batteries that return less that 20bhp...needs a diet.
Together with the batteries, an engine that produces no power at all is also no good, so out with the IMA and in with...

... the K24. It's the same K20 from the Type-R Civic and JDM Fourth Generation Integra but since it's being used in the Accord, an extra 400cc has been added to cope with the extra weight.

The result? Well the result is FINALLY a CRZ. A decent successor for the CRX.
This car is created for the ones Paying for it... it's a driver's car, not the TweetyBird's car, and since the driver is the one paying for it, it feels just right.

The K24 is producing around 280bhp and that's more than double the original 1.5 unit's 112bhp...that's 116Bhp/litre and its close enough to the european version S2000 120Bhp/litre to be called an evolution worthy of this day and age.

If you like you can watch the video of the test drive from Banzai magazine HERE.

Honda's new CEO means business...or at least it should

Being CEO myself, I tend to look at other CEO's with a sceptic viewpoint.
They are normally "dime counters" (a.k.a. economists), "professional bullshitters" (a.k.a. economical engineers...which along with "dime counters" and "politicians" created the economical crisis we live today) or plain managers. These last can be divided into 2 types (project managers or traditional mangers)...and then the business type will dictate it's type-for-the-job index.

I'm, in truth, a Project Manager with engineering roots, witch makes me suitable for companies who's business relies essentially on Projects... traditional manager are suitable for "operation" or "process" based businesses.
The automotive business is a mix of these 2. You need to constantly create NEW cars, described as Projects (creating growth by improvement), and then you need to mass produce these cars as what's described as an operation (archiving consolidation).
Till recently, most CEO's are background "dime counters", making them the worse person in the job for creating interesting products, but the best to make them cheap.

Honda is an Engineering Company.
Like most successful engineering companies, It's been run by lovers.. No, I don't mean the pretty blond that dates the CEO making everyone believe that she's just his secretary, but rather the CEO it's self in love with the company. Mostly this means that in an engineering company, they are Engineers.
As with many Engineers in a Management Position, they will soon need to acquire Management Knowledge and that can create 2 different types of CEO's... The Project Manager type, and the Process Manager Type.
That doesn't mean however that they can manage as well as they would love to.
From It's creation till today, Honda had 7 CEO's:

• 1948–1973 – Soichiro Honda
• 1973–1983 – Kiyoshi Kawashima
• 1983–1990 – Tadashi Kume
• 1990–1998 – Nobuhiko Kawamoto
• 1998–2004 – Hiroyuki Yoshino
• 2004–2009 – Takeo Fukui
• since 2009 – Takanobu Ito

I've been an Honda fan until the recent "eco mania disease" I call Honda's DarkAge. And that's Takeo Fukui's ruling time. Takeo Fukui's has a degree in Chemical Engineering (ok, not quite the mechanical guy I expected), but it's curriculum includes Honda Racing and Honda R&D, so I would expect better from him.
Honda used to create good consumer projects with economy and affordability in mind, and then go weird and create type-r versions of those same products for the passionate ones. That seemed like a perfect thing until politicians (probably the only thing worse than economical engineers), decided to use the car's CO emissions as a pretext for excessive taxation. And that doomed the industry.
Honda, much like Toyota immediately gave into this mass stupidity where instead of using the taxes already being paid (for ages I might add) to plant trees and filter out carbon, the cars have to emit less and less carbon. I'm surprised that the damn politicians didn't yet fit a face mask with a catalytic converter to each and every Olympic athlete and football player...I mean when they breathe deeply under physical stress, they will be emitting more carbon than a prius!!!

To sum up, the industry was already counting dimes instead of focusing in creating good products, when the politicians joined the game and made these  shift their entire product range to dull, and ultimately bad products. Why the BAD word? Cause a hybrid vehicle will eat more gas than a full engined gas car (because it lacks engine and has excessive weight due in part to the huge battery pack in the boot)... and the battery pack is created from heavy metals mined and fused creating more impact on the environment then all the f1 engines in the world together...and this is just part of the equation,, cause when the life-cycle ends they have to be recycled and this creates more impact...or left to rotten that is even worse.

So it's true that a hybrid is a bad car right? Not quite.
In the essence of the tree-huggers GREEN car, the hybrid is  stupid and bad idea. But if you reduce the battery pack and replace the metal battery for the brand new membrane accumulators (rendering it useless for consumption reduction purposes as it's still an emerging technology and doesn't yet supply/accumulate lot's of energy), and then use the electric motors to torque the huge gas engine further than it would (like Lexus did, like Porshe concepts to do) than it's actually a good thing.

And then we get to the article:

Meet Honda's CEO - Takanobu Ito.
He entered Honda as a Chassis Design Research and Development Expert, and was one of the responsibles for the NSX all aluminium chassis. He was one of the Engineers behind one of Honda's best project till date.

So I'm expecting him to be THAT kind of good CEO that creates good products instead of destroying them to "count dimes".
And he decided that the Civic should have a Type-r again, and a new NSX should arise... and it's a hybrid one.
Now before grabbing your tomatoes, remember my previous paragraph...the hybrid that actually doesn't give a damn about the birds and the squirls and their erection problems due to CO emissions...it' the only Hybrid that actually makes sense.

The Rising Sun prepares for a come back

Takanobu Ito is preparing the Type-R come back (although unsure about the type-r badge yet... can't quite understand why).

And the new NSX concept is beautiful as you can see...

...but hey, Honda's new design is not the issue, but rather the lack of engine, so the new NSX is pretty much like the old one and uses a V6 (not my favourite platform, but after seeing Honda sell the CRX replacement as a 1.5hybrid with 124bhp...I'll take anything that outputs over 100bhp/tonne)

So where does the Hybrid part fit? Well picture a rear wheel drive car that's a 4wd car. In truth, the NSX is a MECHANICAL ENGINE-TO-GEARBOX-TO-WHEEL RWD platform, but a couple of torque electrical engines have been built into the 2 front wheel hubs, and that means that it can torque the front wheels into a corner with electronic precision that is very, VERY efficient and hard to beat.
Check my article comparing the Asterio Roadster with the Audi eTron that uses the very same principle.
NOW THAT's an Hybrid I would buy. Pure, atmospheric mechanical grunt driving the rear wheels and 2 torque engines driving the front and signing you into PERFECT apex lines, melting rubber on the way due to the extreme G's it's pulling.

It's a much needed change
Honda has finally realized that the ONLY cars they built that are successful, are the "old" ones.
The Accord, and the CR-V are today's success story's...followed by the not so successful (no wonder) Odyssey, and then comes the flops, the CR-Z, the Inside and the Ridgeline...leaving the obvious huge failure (with vomit provoking design) Crosstour.
The Market Is reacting to this lack of vision and things seem to start to change. My S2000 is pulling the 8 year line and I'm thinking that one of these days it will have to stop being abused dally and start having a more calm weekend abuse only...but how would I buy a daily driver that doesn't render-me a depressive state? not much to choose from unless I want another 8 year old car :S!
 
FINALLY Honda is planing to move out of the closet it's locked it self in... and together with Toyota's rethinking the Supra and creating the 86 replacement, I would guess that the sun will rise again.