...Well, of a math/engineering perspective...

When I see "same hp, somewhat higher torque, somewhat lower redline", I think "gear ratio". So, taking the published crank torque curves for the 2.2L and 2.0L (training manual and SAE paper, respectively), I tried to fit them to each other by varying gear ratio. Sure enough, if I take the 2.0L curve and multiply by the actual displacement ratios (1.08), the curves overlap quite nicely. They actually fit best to a "gear ratio" of 1.06-1.07. Worst off by ~5 lb-ft, normally +/-2.

Basically, if someone put a box around a 2.0L with an added gear ratio of 1.07, it would mimic the 2.2L almost perfectly. You'd read near the same torque, same hp, same rpm. And I venture it would perform near identically!

Given Honda already increased the secondary ratio from 1.16 to 1.208, I'd say the '04 would behave just about like an '03 with 4.10*1.07*(1.208/1.16)=4.57 final ratio. Which is currently the subject of another post. So, to get a good idea of its real-world performance, look to posted results of 4.44 and 4.77 ratio'd cars.

 

very cool observation

 

You're right. Unfortunately, pre-'04 owners will still have to deal with the shorter sixth gear (and the resulting bump in RPMs at cruising speeds)...

 

Is this one of those times that they said algebra would save my life?

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by FCGuy
...Well, of a math/engineering perspective...

When I see "same hp, somewhat higher torque, somewhat lower redline", I think "gear ratio".

 

LMFFAO

 

OK Mr. Math, what about the larger wheels on the 04?

 

What about them? They have the same outer tire diameter, within a % based on nominal specs. Or are you referring to added weight? Virtually no effect.

 

FCGuy, thank you for stating in such a clear manner the root of this whole situation.

(FWIW, my personal opinion is that it's a shame what Honda did. Sigh.)

 

gearing gearing gearing
torque is meaningless