Honda Retooling Product Plan to Reduce Weight, Improve MPG

Although I like Ito's aggressiveness, the current Civic is just the right size. If anything needs to be downsized it would be the current Acura TSX and it's cousin, the U.S. Honda Accord. Leave the Civic and Fit as they are.

On the contrary, the previous smaller, lighter cars from Honda are what attracted many enthusiasts like myself to the Honda brand back in the late 80's and early 90's. This should be quite interesting for Honda enthusiasts over the next few years as we've never really seen anything this drastic before. The only thing I ask of Ito-san is PLEASE don't take away those certain key elements that make a Honda.... a Honda.

As for Acura's new direction courtesy of Jeff Palmer moderator @ Temple of VTEC:

"I asked Ito-san how Honda's sharpened focus on environmental technology fit in with the vision for Acura as a brand and the luxury market in general. The answer was that Acura would be re-focused on delivering the performance levels sought by premium/luxury car buyers, and these performance levels would be coupled with strong environmental performance. In a later conversation, Ito-san admitted that there's a "certain level of confusion" in the existing Acura lineup, and they would work to fix that. "

I hope Ito can do something really really really really really drastic with the Acura brand as its lacked direction and focus for some time now. Acura certainly needs to make their sedans more diverse in terms of available drivetrains and physical size as they tend to step on each others toes.

Below are my recommendations for Acura although the drivetrains will be completely different from what they are now. I would include the new drivetrains but I'd don't have any information on Ito's drivetrain proposals, so I'll have to use existing ones.

- The TSX should return to its previous size and have a revised 210hp 2.4L and a higher powered version of the 2.4 or a revamped (read much more efficient) version of the K23T from the RDX.

- The TL should become slightly smaller....somewhere between the size of the current and previous TL.

- The RL should become larger than the current yet not be able to be out shined by the TL as it is currently. This should be a true yet extremely green sport/luxury flagship that can deliver a uniquely different experience to this segment.

- RDX, MDX, ZDX...I think they are ok in terms of segment positioning and size. Just work on the green stuff.

- I'd like to see a legit TL based Acura coupe. (94/95 Acura Legend LS 6MT coupe with the Type II V6 was fabulous !)

- Maybe a premium small car. Something along the lines of a VW GTi or a Audi A3 but much different in overall character and a much higher level of presentation than the Integra/RSX and Civic Si. It has to look, feel and drive like a premium car. This is the car that should draw younger buyers to the Acura brand.

- Of course all Acura vehicles would meet and hopefully exceed Ito's performance and environmental performance expectations.

- Last but not least, change that damned grill!

Everyone here, please ask yourself where your favorite automobile company will be when the landscape changes?

Put the current Accord EX engine in something smaller and we'll be good to go.

"Put the current Accord EX engine in something smaller and we'll be good to go."

Lenoroc, why?

All cars would be better if made lighter. I'm not sure if the Civic should be smaller though as they already have a smaller entry in the Fit.

I'd love to see some much smaller hondas (less then 2000 lbs) but I doubt they would be called Civics.

Considering the 1995 civic ex was only slightly less weight than the 2009 (~200lbs I think) I can't see them doing a lot. Now if the suspension is double wishbone instead of mcpherson strut...

The current Civic was already a bit smaller inside than the Civic that came before it (even if it is slightly larger outside). Unless the Accord shrinks A LOT, I don't see how this is a good idea given the huge size difference between the Accord and the Civic right now.

"Yes, this from a company that already boasts one of the most efficient fleets on the market. Such are the demands of the upcoming fuel mileage standards in the U.S. "

Honda has one of the most efficient fleets simply because it doesn't make trucks. If you look at the mileage of Honda's actual vehicles few of them lead in fuel economy. The Accord V6 is one of the few Honda products that gets best in class mileage. Let's tone down the Honda cheerleading and just report the news without anything added.

I think its funny that Honda is telling us that they have to make adjustments to meet the new standards when the media has been telling us for months that the new CAFE rules wouldn't be an issue for the imports- only Detroit. Every article I saw on the subject made it clear that Honda and Toyota were already way ahead in the fuel efficiency game and would't face the same challenges as American automakers. Of course, a review of the EPA site to look at actualy mileage ratings tells a different story...

Considering Honda is trailing in the implementation of direct injection, turbo charging, diesels and 6 speed autos they have little choice but to focus on weight reduction. Reducing weight without compromising safety or quietness is very difficult to do which is why most others are using technology to increase efficiency as opposed to removing weight. This story seems to be inferring that Honda wasn't planning any radical advances in powertrain for the next Civic. The car isn't heavy now so adding direct injection and a 6 speed would easily add 2-3mpg.

I'm with hondacura4 on virtually every point. What made Hondas great--back when they actually WERE--was a combination of light weight, good suspension design, and carefully engineered powertrains that gave them better performance AND better fuel economy AND better handling than the competition.

Honda has devolved significantly in the last ten years.

I agree completely with a focus on less weight. I also wouldn't have any misgivings about a smaller civic. I like small cars, and Honda is one of those companies with a knack for doing small cars right.

Keep sporty drivetrain options available for those of us who want them (double wishbone suspension would also be nice).

While I don't agree with 1487's implication that there is "honda loving" going on in the original post, he does bring up a good point about Honda's lack of newer technologies like 6 speed autos, direct injection, etc.

Not really a fan of turbo charging unless absolutely necessary. I like the behavior of naturally aspirated, high reving engines. But if its possible to keep that same character while also adding direction injection, then I'm on board. Please continue to offer me a manual option as well.

I've always assumed that Honda hasn't made use of those and other "newer" technologies in this market for simple cost/benefit reasons. They already have fuel efficient vehicles (though not always the most fuel efficient in their class) so why invest the extra money and complexity in those technologies? It will either add to the cost of the vehicle for the consumer or cut into their margin and there wouldn't be any real gain since they are already very competitive on the efficiency front. So they just continue to reap the benefits of technology they've already amortized. That's smart business, I guess, but it doesn't help them maintain a reputation for leading edge engineering.

I agree with stephen987 that Honda has allowed themselves to go soft over the last decade or so. Its been a long time since they could claim a technological or innovative advatage over their competition. Time to get that mojo back. Best of luck to Ito-San in his mission.

Yay smaller.

1487:

Stick to talking about domestics. Its hard to say Honda is "behind," they chose a direction: more high revving, smaller, naturally aspirated motors. If anyone talks about cars with bias its you.

The 2007-2008 RDX 2.3L had a turbo. Just because a company doesn't add turbos on all their care it doesn't mean they are behind.

The S2000 would have been much different with say, a 2.4L turbo 250HP motor. In my S2000 I got 30 mpg highway. I wouldn't have changed it the car.

The Civic is sold with direct injection (thats the only one I looked up).

Holy cow! A car company that understands that bigger is not always better. Woo-hoo!!!

"I'd love to see some much smaller Honda's (less then 2000 lbs) but I doubt they would be called Civics."

Firstwagon, under 2000lbs? Do you realize how small that car would have to be yet still meet Honda's and the governments safety standards? To give you an idea a 1984 Honda CRX weighs right under 1900lbs and that car was TINY.

-------------------------

"The current Civic was already a bit smaller inside than the Civic that came before it (even if it is slightly larger outside)"

Roar, although the measurements may be in line with your statement (I'm unsure), the current Civic has much more USABLE space vs the previous model, especially in width and in rear seat space. I'm 6ft tall (long legs/short torso) and can comfortably sit behind my good friend who's 6ft 1 in his 08 Civic Si sedan. I couldn't do that in any previous Civic, at least comfortably.

-------------------------

"Considering the 1995 civic ex was only slightly less weight than the 2009."

Inlinesix, I own a 1995 Civic Ex sedan and it weighs around 2550lbs without me in it. Keep in mind it was the heaviest of the Civic line at that time. The heaviest Civic currently is the Civic Si sedan which is right under 3000lbs.

-------------------------

"Considering Honda is trailing in the implementation of direct injection, turbo charging, diesels and 6 speed autos they have little choice but to focus on weight reduction."

1487, obviously you don't understand the Honda way of thinking NOR did you even attempt to do research before typing your ignorant statement.

Honda and Direct Injection:

FYI, Honda hasn't implemented DI in more engines as the REAL WORLD efficiency gains have yet to justify the additional cost, complexity and potential issues for such a design in Honda's eyes. Honda has already had at least one DOHC DI engine on the market which debuted in the 2003 Honda Stream Absolute (which wasn't available for U.S. consumption) and it was actually among the first production DI engines. For whatever reason, the technology must not have panned out as promised or it didn't meet Honda's expectations. People (like yourself) automatically assume that Honda wont sell a DI engine, therefor they must not have the capability to produce it, when in fact Honda was developing a DI engine in the late 90's.

http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4031127a/

http://world.honda.com/news/2003/4031127.html

With the new generation Stream Honda replaced the previous K20 DOHC DI engine with a non DI SOHC R20 that achieved similar performance and fuel economy consisting of a much simpler SOHC configuration with VTEC on the intake cams. That said, Honda has little interest in DI right now since there is much more to win with much less to give with other technologies that they actually master. Sometimes less is more.

For some wild reason you (1487) consistently only point out the positives of DI (maybe because GM has touted its abilities so much) but you never point out the negatives.

Negatives of DI:
- No lean burn (Nox issues)
- Higher costs
- Parts issues (high pressure pumps in both BMW and Mazda DI vehicles have had many issues)
- NVH issues (the pumps aren't exactly quiet)
- With our high sulfur content fuel, it is likely that DI systems will need far more maintenance over the long run due to buildup, and other issues caused by the sulfur and heat of the combustion chamber.
- DI was supposed to provide the ability to run in ultra lean burn mode, which would promise significant MPG savings (20-30% supposedly, which again works out to 2-5MPG in most cases), however, again, our fuel in the states prevents that from happening.
- DI doesn't do a whole lot for economy or power in NA applications, primarily because emissions laws don't allow the cars to run as lean as they could. (For example, Cadillac's current DOHC 3.6 DI engine in the CTS produces about the same hp to the wheels as the (non VCM/non DI) SOHC 3.5L V6 in the Accord Coupe.

Positives of DI:
- Allows higher compression ratios for turbo applications which provide quicker spool up and better throttle response.
- Provides the ability to run lean into boost longer.
- While NA engines can benefit, given octane limitations, forced induction engines benefit even more so.
- Slight increase in fuel consumption.

Oddly, most other manufacturers DI engines don't substantially outperform any equivalent Honda engine in terms of emissions or economy, despite the billing of this technology as "gotta have it."

Honda and turbocharging:

Ahh the turbocharger. Honda has never been a "leader" or actually cared for turbocharging outside of their TOTAL DOMINATION of the turbocharged F1 era of the 80's. On the contrary, Acura currently offers the 2.3T in the RDX although it's direct competition is similar in output and get similar EPA estimates if that means anything.

18/23 270/243 Audi Q5
16/23 260/225 BMW X3
17/22 265/258 Mercedes GLK
17/23 244/258 Mazda CX-7
18/24 200/206 VW Tiquan
17/22 240/260 RDX

Keep in mind that none of them are faster than the RDX, they all weigh within 5-7% and have 6 or 7 speed transmissions vs. the RDX's ultra tall geared 5AT.

Honda also offered a super rare 1st generation limited edition Honda (Acura) Legend turbo coupe and a Honda City turbo hatchback in the late 80's that of course weren't available for U.S. consumption. Honda also tinkered with the idea of a turbocharged engine (one of many engines considered) during the NSX's development stages but decided that a NA engine would be less complex, weigh less and provide much better response overall.

Honda and diesels:

In terms of diesels, I wasn't aware that GM was a leader in clean diesel technology. On the contrary, Honda has an excellent 2.2L diesel offering in the European market but couldn't get the automatic version to meet the U.S. ever stricter emission standards in it's current state. This goes back to the substantial investments required to meet or exceed those standards. To further justify Honda's decision, the actual volume of diesels sold in the U.S. isn't exactly substantial, the economic conditions at the time didn't favor the increased investment nor does Honda have a diesel fan base in the U.S. like say Volkswagen/Audi with its TDI clean diesel. On the contrary, I've heard rumors of Honda still trying to get the diesel to exceed the U.S. standards but that was before Ito was in his current position. I doubt that's the case now.

2003 introduction of the i-CTDi 2.2L diesel:

http://world.honda.com/HDTV/news/2003-4030226_1a/

2007 introduction of the i-DTEC clean diesel:

http://world.honda.com/news/2007/4070911Frankfurt-Motor-Show/

2008 introduction of the (unfortunately canceled) Acura i-dtec clean diesel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jK_yWygCdI

Honda and the 6AT:

I do agree with you 1487 on the fact that Honda has been slow to introduce a 6AT. However, there will be an all new 6AT available in the 2010 Acura ZDX and 2010 MDX. I'm sure there are reasons behind Honda's slow move to 6AT's.

- Honda uses a proprietary design that is very different from other autos on the market.

- Honda, with their Hondamatic setup, developed years ago because they did not want to license any technology from other companies, uses a setup that looks more like a manual transmission, with small individual wet clutch packs for each gear. It is more complex, probably more expensive, and much harder to add a 6th gear to it. On the contrary,most modern AT's (torque converter driven) use a system of planetary gears usually selected by band clutches. This makes for a very compact setup, relatively efficient and durable.

- Honda had to invest substantially in revisions to the unreliable 3 shaft 4AT/5AT that plagued many 99-02 Honda/Acura products due to a lack of lubrication. They used a slightly revised 3 shaft 5AT for the 03 and up Honda/Acuras that have been reliable. My wifes 05 Odyssey Touring uses that revised 3 shaft 5AT and it has performed flawlessly after nearly 80K. After that unfortunate mishap, Honda introduced a newer 4 shaft 5AT that was much more reliable, much much stronger and much more durable and was first implemented in the 2006 Ridgeline. Of course that transmission spread to ALL other V6 powered Honda/Acura vehicles including the boosted 4cyl Acura RDX.

- I assume "the delay" was Honda trying to recap on that investment.

On a brighter note, even with only 5 widely spaced gears, Honda's 5AT has been preferred many times over GM's 6AT (and others) as it's much more responsive and it's not nearly as eager to go to the next gear for the sake of potentially better FE.

Quote from 2007-08 Edmunds IL Family sedan test regarding the Malibu V6's 6AT:

"The Malibu's six-speed automatic transmission garners some black marks from us due to its lazy part-throttle calibration, which dulls the engine's potency. Top gear is summoned at every opportunity, and the gearbox doggedly refuses to downshift in a timely fashion. This is clearly a measure to enhance fuel economy, yet it also gives the car a sluggish disposition around town despite the V6's respectably broad power band."

Quote from 2007-08 Edmunds IL Family sedan test regarding the Accord V6's 5AT:

"Though the competition has adopted six-speed transmissions, Honda's five-speed manages to overcome its disadvantage with smart calibration and quick shift action. You won't miss the extra gear while climbing hills, since the transmission's excellent grade logic makes for frustration-free ascents."

-------------------------

"Proving that leaders of socialist economies just don't seem to understand the concept of capitalism and the free market at all."

CWC1, although I don't agree with everything that is socialist based, do you realize that a lot of things in this country are? Medicare, public schools, welfare...ETC ETC...

-------------------------

"The Civic is sold with direct injection (thats the only one I looked up). "

Inlinesix, the Civic is sold with DIRECT IGNITION not direct injection.

Correction: Cadillac 3.6 DI = 304 hp. Accord 3.5 V6 = 268 hp. Not "about the same." The Caddy's non-DI engine produced 263 hp, which is "about the same" as the Accord's 268.

"To give you an idea a 1984 Honda CRX weighs right under 1900lbs and that car was TINY."

And yet it had loads of room for 2 and a useful cargo space. The Civic hatch weighed just a little more and would seat 4 in reasonable comfort.... and they were built using 1984 technology.

25 years later they have more safety standards to meet but 25 more years of engineering development to reduce weight.

I was 21 when the 84 CRX came out and and a college buddy had one. Even with 6 foot plus guys, it still have lots of room, drove like a sports car and got incredible mileage.

1984 was a highwater mark for Honda.

"Correction: Cadillac 3.6 DI = 304 hp. Accord 3.5 V6 = 268 hp. Not "about the same." The Caddy's non-DI engine produced 263 hp, which is "about the same" as the Accord's 268."

Correction: Accord 3.5 V6 = 271hp

Stephen, if you notice I said TO THE WHEELS, referring to a chassis dyno comparison where power is measured at the wheels not at the crank. FYI, the non VCM Accord V6 is underrated from the factory as it almost matches the 2007-08 Acura TL Type-S V6 on the dyno (the TL-S required premium fuel) which is rated a bit more at the crank. Keep in mind the 6MT Accord can consistently post high 13 sec ET's and traps in the 100-102 range on the drag strip. Not bad for a FWD family sedan based coupe.

Bull.

Firstwagon, yes the CR-X (both generations) were awesome little cars that were surprisingly fun to drive and decently quick for their modest power ratings.

A friend of mine who's a Honda technician owns a 1987 CRX Si with a complete suspension overhaul and has installed a 1998 Integra Type R drivetrain using HaSport designed engine relocation mounts. He also owns an 06 Mitsubishi Evolution MR and states that the Honda is MUCH more enjoyable to drive while being MUCH faster at any speed vs the MR. That car is simply a blast to drive!

The first time I saw it he drove past my grandmothers house and I thought to myself "damn, that was a clean ole' CRX" even though it was primed for paint. I then heard him gear down at the 4 way stop at the top of the hill. Then I heard tires squealing and a symphony that could only come from a high revving DOHC VTEC B18C Series engine. I thought to myself, "that's no ordinary ole' CRX. A few months later I went to the Honda dealer to pick up some oil filters and saw the car there. Eventually talked to the owner/technician and we became good friends.

No it doesn't have a "fart can" as it's tastefully modified and very low key. I believe he has a cheap Pace Setter cat back exhaust that looks stock but sounds excellent. The car has posted consistent mid 12 second passes (aggressive street rubber) with only bolt on modifications yet can return almost 38MPG!

"25 years later they have more safety standards to meet but 25 more years of engineering development to reduce weight."

I'm not suggesting Honda couldn't do it but with all the required (read heavy) safety hardware and the actual price of light weight materials such as aluminum, magnesium ETC ETC (raw material prices have skyrocketed over the past years), I seriously doubt Honda could implement those weight saving materials yet price it fairly.

Stephen:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15vVdJzdhG4

http://revver.com/video/475758/tov-video-dynojet-test-of-2008-accord-v6-6mt/

Hondacura:

You got the facts right on the DI. I miss-read.

On the weight comparison-I looked up the manufacturers reported curb weights for the Civic EX in 1995 and the 2009 Civic EX which weighs 2,703. The 1995 EX coupe was about 2,500. So thats where my 200lb difference came from. Now if you compare the new civic Si with the 1995 DX, that's a very big difference.

I drove a 2008 si coupe and after that I'd say Honda has gotten away from the company it was. I owned a CRX HF, a 1991 si hatch and a stock 1994 Del Sol DOHC VTEC and I'd take the fourth and fifth gens over the new ones. Even though I'd drive a new Si, its not the same car.

" I drove a 2008 si coupe and after that I'd say Honda has gotten away from the company it was. I owned a CRX HF, a 1991 si hatch and a stock 1994 Del Sol DOHC VTEC and I'd take the fourth and fifth gens over the new ones. Even though I'd drive a new Si, its not the same car."

Wow, a DOHC VTEC Del Sol. Those things are as rare as the 92-93 Acura Intergra GS-R with the B17. I've only seen a couple of each through the years.

Many of us Honda enthusiasts have said the same things, however, like most modern cars those old wild in nature Honda's of the past had to mature and grow up. Although the current Si is missing that rare and unexplainable element that made the 94-01 Integra GS-R and 99-00 Civic Si so much fun it's still an overly fun ride. However, Ito said he would bring that element back to the Honda brand so......who knows.

My expectation is that Honda will launch something in the spirit of the older cars and I hope they do. If I can convince my wife that we need a fourth car, my next one will be an Si or another S2000.

The DOHC VTEC Del Sol was a blast. I found it from a Honda dealer with all records. I sold it a few years ago and I've regretted it ever since.