10th Honda Civic Forum banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
143 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...hat-people-are-saying-about-hondas-2016-civic



Honda Motor Co. says the 2016 Civic underwent “the most radical redesign” since the model line was introduced in 1973. Through the years, in addition to the standard Civic sedan and coupe, there have been del Sol, three-door hatchback, wagon and CR-X versions. The Civic's predecessor, the CVCC, went on sale in 1971. The 2016 lineup, built on an all-new, lighter but stiffer platform, will spawn a five-door hatchback, Si and Type R variants. But it all kicks off when the sedan goes on sale this fall. A look at what journalists, analysts and others are saying about the retooled Civic sedan:

“Every generation of the car rested on the assumption that buyers were blindly loyal and that every competitor was asleep like they were in the ‘80s. This car will be far more dynamic and sporty than past Civics.”

-- Eric Noble, president of CarLab, a consulting firm in Orange, Calif.

"Those faithful to manual transmission can rest easy: a six-speed is still offered. Most buyers, however, will opt for the continuously variable transmission, or CVT, a version of which underwhelmed us in the new Honda HR-V ... The bane of Honda’s existence over the years has been high levels of interior noise, which, Honda says, will be much better with this new model. In an effort to quell the din, the 2016 Honda Civic uses new body-sealing techniques, a flush-mounted acoustic glass windshield, a more tightly sealed engine compartment, and triple-sealed doors ... There was a time when Civics ruled our ratings, but the last several years have seen the once-mighty Honda play second fiddle to the Mazda3, Ford Focus, Subaru Impreza, and Hyundai Elantra. Will the new 2016 Honda Civic win over new buyers and become a solid contender again? We’ll let you know when we buy ours for testing."

-- Consumer Reports

“The new Civic faces a major challenge as the market has clearly shifted from small and mid-size cars to small and mid-size SUVs and trucks. With that said, the Civic is an icon in the industry, and will always be one of Honda's most compelling products. The introduction of sportier variants will certainly help, as the Civic needs to be viewed as more than just a reliable car to get you from point A to point B. The new Civic should add fun and style to the mix, along with a host of strong features and value for the buck.”

-- Kelley Blue Book analyst Akshay Anand

"The new 2016 Honda Civic sedan’s low-slung shape looks good in person, and the range-topping Touring model shown at the debut featured nice, upscale details like LED accents in the headlights and sharp alloy wheels. Longer, lower, and wider than its predecessor, a 1.2-inch wheelbase stretch results in 3.7 cu ft of extra space inside, 2 inches more legroom in the rear seat, and 2.6 cubic feet more trunk space. We wonder about headroom in back, though, as the steeply sloped rear end cuts into the space over your head a bit—passengers over six feet tall don’t have much clearance back there."

-- Automobile

"While the Civic has stood atop retail compact car sales since 2007, the challenge to its sales growth is evident inside Honda itself, where the Honda CR-V crossover — built on the same platform as the Civic — has become the hottest-selling vehicle in the hottest segment in America. CR-V sales jumped 10.9 percent to a record 335,019 in 2014 and are up 6 percent this year while Civic sales slid by 4 percent. To prove its relevance, the U.S.-developed, tenth-generation Civic throws everything and the kitchen sink at the market. It will come in the most diverse packaging in the Civic’s 43-year history: Sedan, coupe, five-door hatchback, performance Si models, and a hot-hatch, 300-horsepower Civic Type-R. A suite of driver-assist features will be available including Collision Mitigation Braking, Road Departure Mitigation, and Adaptive Cruise Control as well as a buffet of digital features from a 7-inch touchscreen to apps for Apple Car Play and Android Auto."

-- The Detroit News

"Cheers: New looks make the car very sporty. Better gas mileage, more interior room and more power. High performance versions should be fun to drive. Jeers: Comes out when small-car sales are falling in the U.S. and more people are shifting into small SUVs."

-- Associated Press
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
The back and sides look great, but I think they missed out on the front end. It still looks very average to me. The Civic will do great though. No one is worried about it. It's a staple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
I do like the front as well
but why the chrome?!? oh why the bloody chrome?!?
did they do it to make sure the futur facelift will look more appealing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
Yea its mostly the chrome bar that ruins it. I wonder what it would look like if that was switched to body color.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Ahhh anything but body color! That would be so bulky imo. My vote is for a black chrome or gunmetal. Even the gloss black on the coupe concept was lovely...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
What I really hate is all the miss information, for example the body weighs in 68 less pounds vs 9th gen 4 door. Really??? WHO CARES! We drive cars and that is complete package: I suspect the final package is HEAVIER, I suspect that Honda well knows this so they just spout mis-information to make the new larger heavier car built on the Accord platform seem so much Civic light / like.. Shame on Honda for misleading us. Either the CAR is lighter or it ain't.... I say it probably ain't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
What I really hate is all the miss information, for example the body weighs in 68 less pounds vs 9th gen 4 door. Really??? WHO CARES! We drive cars and that is complete package: I suspect the final package is HEAVIER, I suspect that Honda well knows this so they just spout mis-information to make the new larger heavier car built on the Accord platform seem so much Civic light / like.. Shame on Honda for misleading us. Either the CAR is lighter or it ain't.... I say it probably ain't.
Some people like to know technical specs like how much the new platform weighs. Honda hasn't released all the information on the car yet, so they gave only enough info to get people excited for the release. They aren't lying to us, they aren't misdirecting us. They're giving us technical specs on parts of the car that some people would be interested in knowing.

The new platform is HUGE step forward for the civic and the rest of the honda range that will be using it. So it makes sense that they'd want to talk about it and give details.

If you don't like how Honda is doing things then stop reading about it....

And if you're going to knock the new civic or honda just because they haven't released official total weight on the car yet, maybe you should find a different car company to be interested in. Just sayin....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Some people like to know technical specs like how much the new platform weighs. Honda hasn't released all the information on the car yet, so they gave only enough info to get people excited for the release. They aren't lying to us, they aren't misdirecting us. They're giving us technical specs on parts of the car that some people would be interested in knowing.

The new platform is HUGE step forward for the civic and the rest of the honda range that will be using it. So it makes sense that they'd want to talk about it and give details.

If you don't like how Honda is doing things then stop reading about it....

And if you're going to knock the new civic or honda just because they haven't released official total weight on the car yet, maybe you should find a different car company to be interested in. Just sayin....
So in a nut shell Honda wants to sell us the ILX dumpster engine shoved into an Accord which has a FAR FAR FAR better bae engine (similar to the 2015Civic SI K24). WOOT!


Please Honda knows the shell is 68 lbs lighter and they don't know how heavy the car is? LOL that is funny. We all know if it was lighter Honda would tells us.

You mean if I'm not a Honda shill, stop reading. Caus only Honda shills can appreciate anything Honda builds. Oh, I'm interested in the Honda, I driven them for 3 going on 4 decades, I just like information vs data. And when the company gives me data like shell weight and does not give me information like how heavy the car is.... I tend to question their motivation. Just like the hype about the "most powerful base engine" like big deal the 2.0 is a gutless wonder and Acura can the turd engine in the ILX because it was so pitiful, and now 2 years after the engine was dropped for the glorified Acura Civic know as the ILX, we should be blown away by it being in the 2016. woohoo... note The R20 is getting long in the tooth and its reverse Miller / Atkinson cycle VTEC is a complete waste of the VTEC system that most of us know and love. Think about it an I-VTEC at 2.0 liters making what 155 ish HP, while my 17 year old type R with a twin cam ancient VTEC made 195 HP from 1.8 liters. Sure I like Miller cycle engines I also want more than 155 HP for a 3000 lbs car.. but we don't know how much it weights do we. What we do know is the Accord 2.4 puts out 185 to 189 HP and is a great engine. Considering the Civic and the Accord is the same chassis the "new" more powerful base Civic is a really really anemic Accord 4 banger... At least Nissan when the Sentra shared the same platform as the Maxima went to a 2.4 base for the Sentra that was years ago....

What having a Civic that is really an Accord is a huge step forward for Civic owners? Total nonsense. Part of the Civic charm and sportiness was it was skinner, lighter and more nimble than the Accord. Now we have an Accord with a discarded ILX engine with an unknow weight, that is going to be harder to park, probably less sporty / tossable and that is a HUGE step forward. You better read up on the 2.0 ILX to see....

Read 2.4 Accord Earth Dream here:
http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-technology/dreamy-technology-makes-new-honda-4-cyl-stand-out

2.0 ILX at 2950 lbs expect the 2016 Civic to be at least that much.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-acura-ilx-20-test-review

"Being a Honda, the Acura likes to rev, and our 2.0-liter test car had adequate grunt for most real-world situations. But an 8.3-second zero-to-60 run and 16.6 seconds to cover the quarter-mile at 85 mph aren’t figures that excite anyone. Despite this car’s trim 2951-pound curb weight, that’s well behind the 2.4-liter car’s 6.4- and 15.0-second times, as well as those for every four-cylinder Honda Accord sedan we’ve tested in recent years,"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,287 Posts
So in a nut shell Honda wants to sell us the ILX dumpster engine shoved into an Accord which has a FAR FAR FAR better bae engine (similar to the 2015Civic SI K24). WOOT!


Please Honda knows the shell is 68 lbs lighter and they don't know how heavy the car is? LOL that is funny. We all know if it was lighter Honda would tells us.

You mean if I'm not a Honda shill, stop reading. Caus only Honda shills can appreciate anything Honda builds. Oh, I'm interested in the Honda, I driven them for 3 going on 4 decades, I just like information vs data. And when the company gives me data like shell weight and does not give me information like how heavy the car is.... I tend to question their motivation. Just like the hype about the "most powerful base engine" like big deal the 2.0 is a gutless wonder and Acura can the turd engine in the ILX because it was so pitiful, and now 2 years after the engine was dropped for the glorified Acura Civic know as the ILX, we should be blown away by it being in the 2016. woohoo... note The R20 is getting long in the tooth and its reverse Miller / Atkinson cycle VTEC is a complete waste of the VTEC system that most of us know and love. Think about it an I-VTEC at 2.0 liters making what 155 ish HP, while my 17 year old type R with a twin cam ancient VTEC made 195 HP from 1.8 liters. Sure I like Miller cycle engines I also want more than 155 HP for a 3000 lbs car.. but we don't know how much it weights do we. What we do know is the Accord 2.4 puts out 185 to 189 HP and is a great engine. Considering the Civic and the Accord is the same chassis the "new" more powerful base Civic is a really really anemic Accord 4 banger... At least Nissan when the Sentra shared the same platform as the Maxima went to a 2.4 base for the Sentra that was years ago....

What having a Civic that is really an Accord is a huge step forward for Civic owners? Total nonsense. Part of the Civic charm and sportiness was it was skinner, lighter and more nimble than the Accord. Now we have an Accord with a discarded ILX engine with an unknow weight, that is going to be harder to park, probably less sporty / tossable and that is a HUGE step forward. You better read up on the 2.0 ILX to see....

Read 2.4 Accord Earth Dream here:
http://wardsauto.com/vehicles-amp-technology/dreamy-technology-makes-new-honda-4-cyl-stand-out

2.0 ILX at 2950 lbs expect the 2016 Civic to be at least that much.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-acura-ilx-20-test-review

"Being a Honda, the Acura likes to rev, and our 2.0-liter test car had adequate grunt for most real-world situations. But an 8.3-second zero-to-60 run and 16.6 seconds to cover the quarter-mile at 85 mph aren’t figures that excite anyone. Despite this car’s trim 2951-pound curb weight, that’s well behind the 2.4-liter car’s 6.4- and 15.0-second times, as well as those for every four-cylinder Honda Accord sedan we’ve tested in recent years,"
Why are you comparing the BASE honda civic engine to the 2.4L in the Si!? you're comments and arguments make no sense! The new 2.0L in the base civic is more powerful than the 1.8 its replacing and it will be faster than it too.

If you're going to argue Si figures, then do it, but don't try and compare the economy based LX civic to an Si in terms of engine or performance.

And i'm sorry but we don't know the weight figures on the civic yet... i seriously doubt it's going to be as heavy as an accord, and it'll still end up being one of the lightest compact cars on the market. Save you're bashing on the new car until all the specs are released. And again, if you don't like it, don't buy one!

You also can't compare the new 2.0L for the base civic to the ILX 2.0.... the ILX engine only made 2 horsepower over the civics version and didn't get anywhere near the 40+mpg on the highway that honda has claimed for the civic. The engine has been heavily revised if not made completely new thanks to the earth dreams tech.

And no, you don't have to be a total honda fanboy or a suck up to honda about the new civic to talk about the new car. But in all seriousness, what is the point of making an account on this forum just to bash the car before it's even released? You obviously have too much time on your hands as you could be doing something actually constructive. You should head over to the motortrend forums, you'd get along great with the trolls that hang out there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
Why are you comparing the BASE honda civic engine to the 2.4L in the Si!? you're comments and arguments make no sense! The new 2.0L in the base civic is more powerful than the 1.8 its replacing and it will be faster than it too.
I'm comparing the pitiful R20 engine to the BASE K24 engine in the Accord which is similar to the SI engine is 2015. Makes no sense? As stated I noted that when the Sentra went to the same platform as the Maxima / Altima, the Sentra base engine became the Altima base a 2.4 or 2.5 liter. The Civic is now for better or worse a cheap Accord. So OF COURSE I'm comparing the 2016 cheap Accord aka Civic to what Honda already offers. The only reason to foist the R20 on the Civic is product separation as both engines are probably within $100 production cost of each other. So Honda takes an unacceptable engine, one that was a TOTAL failure in the ILX (former Acura Civic) and puts it as a base engine, knowing that most people will of course find the engine UNEXCEPTABLE and pay for the upgrade to the 1.5L.

I'm just pointing out for minor cost, the current base 2.4 in the Accord chassis, same chassis as the 2016 Civic, easily could be the base and optional engine for a great and sporty Civic. The 2.0 could be released as a high fuel economy model, de-content ala HF, HX. A higher CR, larger cam and exhaust, DI, 2.4 could be the SI.

Nut shell, Honda wants people to pay more for an optional turbo 1.5 and the 2.0 is an unacceptable leader.


K20 to K24 is a better engine (base in Accord, and similar to 2015 Civic SI)

http://blog.carlist.my/2012/08/previews/honda-civic-2-0-navi-taken-through-its-paces-part-2/

"
But if you are one of those who mashes the accelerator as the lights turn green, then you will be in a bit of a disappointment. Whereas the earlier K20 reacts almost instantly to one’s right foot, its replacement seemed less torquier, taking a couple more heartbeats before shoving the car forwards, all while making its displeasure heard. "


Read more at http://blog.carlist.my/2012/08/prev...through-its-paces-part-2/#pUGeb04l4Efu7WOB.99

If you're going to argue Si figures, then do it, but don't try and compare the economy based LX civic to an Si in terms of engine or performance.
You mean don't compare the new cheap Accord aka 2016 Civic to a real Accord? Honda knows the R20 is a turkey and only has it so people buy the new 1.5 at a huge mark-up. Honda could indeed offer the DI Earth Dreams K20 or K24 for minimal price change and can the R20 and the 1.5T for that matter. In the current age of $2.00 gas we know the R20 makes no sense. Also real world economy between the DI K24 in the Accord is very close R18 in the current Civic, heck even my K24 SI gets about 32 MPG in my daily commute. I drove a company R18 last year and I got around 35 MPG in the same commute. That is about $90 a year fuel cost difference. The Accord K24 DI would probably add something like $45 to yearly fuel cost vs the R20 real world. Fro 40 more HP, I'd take the K24 engine.

Look Honda knows it and that is why the R20 is the base engine and for the first time in the history of the Civic, the base engine is unacceptable and proved to unsellable in the ILX.

And i'm sorry but we don't know the weight figures on the civic yet... i seriously doubt it's going to be as heavy as an accord, and it'll still end up being one of the lightest compact cars on the market. Save you're bashing on the new car until all the specs are released. And again, if you don't like it, don't buy one!


I never said it was going to be as heavy as the Accord, you just made that up. I merely pointed out that Honda knows how heavy the new Civic is and decided to publish data (chassis weight) instead of information (car weight). Your highly mistaken that the 2016 Civic is "one of the lightest" compact cars. The Accord is not know to be a light car, nor agile car, nor nimble car, nor easy to park car. The Accord is a consumer appliance. The Civic was the sporty car, clearly Honda does not have a clue the how and why of Civic owners.

You also can't compare the new 2.0L for the base civic to the ILX 2.0.... the ILX engine only made 2 horsepower over the civics version and didn't get anywhere near the 40+mpg on the highway that honda has claimed for the civic. The engine has been heavily revised if not made completely new thanks to the earth dreams tech.
That is your speculation, I'd speculate it is a MINOR revision of the ILX engine. Why would Honda put any money into a know turkey engine that has just been proven to a marketing failure in the ILX? New engine? You just made that up. I would assume it is nearly identical and please the 40+ MPG EPA, we all know real world we are talking $50 a year....

The current Civic gets the exact same MPG real world as the Kia which was rated 3 or 4 MPG less, in fact all the compacts got with +/- 1 MPG of each other.

But please let me know where you get that the new base civic has a new Earth Dream engine. Than I'll be impressed. As of right now, I'm hardly impressed with the current R20 / R18, which is anemic, soggy in actual usage, does not deliver MPG any better than its rivals in the real world.

I should point out the K24 Accord engine is an Earth Dream engine and it is a phenomenal engine.





And no, you don't have to be a total honda fanboy or a suck up to honda about the new civic to talk about the new car. But in all seriousness, what is the point of making an account on this forum just to bash the car before it's even released?
My first point remains valid, Honda knows the car weight and chose not to share it, but decided to publish a misleading piece of data. We all know the new Civic is going to be a cheap Accord.

If and I say if as I don't know, the R20 is the base engine, Honda is blowing smoke and mirrors about it being somehow a revolutionary "most powerful base engine" ever. The long and short of it, the R20 is an end of life engine that is already a marketing and performance failure. Now if the 2016 Civic does have a all new 2.0 Earth Dreams engine... I'd be impressed, till then I call it as I see it.


You obviously have too much time on your hands as you could be doing something actually constructive. You should head over to the motortrend forums, you'd get along great with the trolls that hang out there.
Sounds like you are disappointed too in the 10th gen. ;)

That's OK, I'm waiting around to see what happens to the SI and Type R, considering my Type R is 18 years old. I did pull the trigger on the 2015 SI as soon as I knew the 2016 would be based on the Accord. I would love to be wrong, but gut feeling so far seems to play out, an Accord sport 4 banger manual seems to be a better car in every way vs this "new" 2016 Civic.:surprise:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
I'm comparing the pitiful R20 engine to the BASE K24 engine in the Accord which is similar to the SI engine is 2015. Makes no sense? As stated I noted that when the Sentra went to the same platform as the Maxima / Altima, the Sentra base engine became the Altima base a 2.4 or 2.5 liter. The Civic is now for better or worse a cheap Accord. So OF COURSE I'm comparing the 2016 cheap Accord aka Civic to what Honda already offers. The only reason to foist the R20 on the Civic is product separation as both engines are probably within $100 production cost of each other. So Honda takes an unacceptable engine, one that was a TOTAL failure in the ILX (former Acura Civic) and puts it as a base engine, knowing that most people will of course find the engine UNEXCEPTABLE and pay for the upgrade to the 1.5L.

I'm just pointing out for minor cost, the current base 2.4 in the Accord chassis, same chassis as the 2016 Civic, easily could be the base and optional engine for a great and sporty Civic. The 2.0 could be released as a high fuel economy model, de-content ala HF, HX. A higher CR, larger cam and exhaust, DI, 2.4 could be the SI.

Nut shell, Honda wants people to pay more for an optional turbo 1.5 and the 2.0 is an unacceptable leader.


K20 to K24 is a better engine (base in Accord, and similar to 2015 Civic SI)

http://blog.carlist.my/2012/08/previews/honda-civic-2-0-navi-taken-through-its-paces-part-2/

"
But if you are one of those who mashes the accelerator as the lights turn green, then you will be in a bit of a disappointment. Whereas the earlier K20 reacts almost instantly to one’s right foot, its replacement seemed less torquier, taking a couple more heartbeats before shoving the car forwards, all while making its displeasure heard. "


Read more at http://blog.carlist.my/2012/08/prev...through-its-paces-part-2/#pUGeb04l4Efu7WOB.99



You mean don't compare the new cheap Accord aka 2016 Civic to a real Accord? Honda knows the R20 is a turkey and only has it so people buy the new 1.5 at a huge mark-up. Honda could indeed offer the DI Earth Dreams K20 or K24 for minimal price change and can the R20 and the 1.5T for that matter. In the current age of $2.00 gas we know the R20 makes no sense. Also real world economy between the DI K24 in the Accord is very close R18 in the current Civic, heck even my K24 SI gets about 32 MPG in my daily commute. I drove a company R18 last year and I got around 35 MPG in the same commute. That is about $90 a year fuel cost difference. The Accord K24 DI would probably add something like $45 to yearly fuel cost vs the R20 real world. Fro 40 more HP, I'd take the K24 engine.

Look Honda knows it and that is why the R20 is the base engine and for the first time in the history of the Civic, the base engine is unacceptable and proved to unsellable in the ILX.

[/B]

I never said it was going to be as heavy as the Accord, you just made that up. I merely pointed out that Honda knows how heavy the new Civic is and decided to publish data (chassis weight) instead of information (car weight). Your highly mistaken that the 2016 Civic is "one of the lightest" compact cars. The Accord is not know to be a light car, nor agile car, nor nimble car, nor easy to park car. The Accord is a consumer appliance. The Civic was the sporty car, clearly Honda does not have a clue the how and why of Civic owners.



That is your speculation, I'd speculate it is a MINOR revision of the ILX engine. Why would Honda put any money into a know turkey engine that has just been proven to a marketing failure in the ILX? New engine? You just made that up. I would assume it is nearly identical and please the 40+ MPG EPA, we all know real world we are talking $50 a year....

The current Civic gets the exact same MPG real world as the Kia which was rated 3 or 4 MPG less, in fact all the compacts got with +/- 1 MPG of each other.

But please let me know where you get that the new base civic has a new Earth Dream engine. Than I'll be impressed. As of right now, I'm hardly impressed with the current R20 / R18, which is anemic, soggy in actual usage, does not deliver MPG any better than its rivals in the real world.

I should point out the K24 Accord engine is an Earth Dream engine and it is a phenomenal engine.







My first point remains valid, Honda knows the car weight and chose not to share it, but decided to publish a misleading piece of data. We all know the new Civic is going to be a cheap Accord.

If and I say if as I don't know, the R20 is the base engine, Honda is blowing smoke and mirrors about it being somehow a revolutionary "most powerful base engine" ever. The long and short of it, the R20 is an end of life engine that is already a marketing and performance failure. Now if the 2016 Civic does have a all new 2.0 Earth Dreams engine... I'd be impressed, till then I call it as I see it.




Sounds like you are disappointed too in the 10th gen. ;)

That's OK, I'm waiting around to see what happens to the SI and Type R, considering my Type R is 18 years old. I did pull the trigger on the 2015 SI as soon as I knew the 2016 would be based on the Accord. I would love to be wrong, but gut feeling so far seems to play out, an Accord sport 4 banger manual seems to be a better car in every way vs this "new" 2016 Civic.:surprise:
hey oldman, I don't totally agree with everything you're saying but I do like the way your saying it ahah! You seem to know a thing or two about or thing or two, glad to have you along for the ride regardless!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
interesting read methinks
but I really hope you're wrong
Honda in europe, certainly in Belgium is starting to become more and more unknown
they really need to stand out again
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,455 Posts
interesting read methinks
but I really hope you're wrong
Honda in europe, certainly in Belgium is starting to become more and more unknown
they really need to stand out again
Going back to making products that specifically target a market might be good for them but at the rate things are moving it seems we're well past that. But this new direction could help them overall with world products that get recognized around the world and not just in specific nations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
interesting read methinks
but I really hope you're wrong
Honda in europe, certainly in Belgium is starting to become more and more unknown
they really need to stand out again
I think its the lack of a good diesel. Honda engineers were baffled how VW was able to make such a clean and efficicnet diesel... we now know why... I wouldn't toally doubt that Honda figured out what VW was up to and kept their mouths shut...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
I think its the lack of a good diesel. Honda engineers were baffled how VW was able to make such a clean and efficicnet diesel... we now know why... I wouldn't toally doubt that Honda figured out what VW was up to and kept their mouths shut...


Aah, that would be a nightmare.
Now the lack of a good diesel ain't completely true.
They canceled the 2.2 here in Europe (very good engine 8 years ago.
Now they have the 1.6 which is a great engine as well, really
Quite performant with low emissions (I hope TRUE low emissions)
not that low of the vw 1.6tdi but it was more performant and less thirsty
they just need another one
I can't understand why they canceled the development on the 2.2
If they hadn't they would have had a good dieselline-up here in Europe imo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
165 Posts
Going back to making products that specifically target a market might be good for them but at the rate things are moving it seems we're well past that. But this new direction could help them overall with world products that get recognized around the world and not just in specific nations.
yup in the aspect of 'recognition' I think they made a step in the right direction
a large step
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
959 Posts
Aah, that would be a nightmare.
Now the lack of a good diesel ain't completely true.
They canceled the 2.2 here in Europe (very good engine 8 years ago.
Now they have the 1.6 which is a great engine as well, really
Quite performant with low emissions (I hope TRUE low emissions)
not that low of the vw 1.6tdi but it was more performant and less thirsty
they just need another one
I can't understand why they canceled the development on the 2.2
If they hadn't they would have had a good dieselline-up here in Europe imo.
I thought you could still get the 2.2d in the CR-V over there?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
991 Posts
I think its the lack of a good diesel. Honda engineers were baffled how VW was able to make such a clean and efficicnet diesel... we now know why... I wouldn't toally doubt that Honda figured out what VW was up to and kept their mouths shut...
Yea they probably were thinking that either they have some absolute genius engineer, or they are cheating. Let's bet on them cheating, and wait for the sh*t to hit the fan. Then who will people turn to? Good ol' reliable Honda, and look, we are trying to be interesting again.
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top