Factory Honda Turbo - from a CRV
09-17-2001, 06:23 AM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Factory Honda Turbo - from a CRV
Honda is releasing the updated '02 CRV with a 2.0L motor. Which is no real spark in itself - but they are also pairing the CRV 2.0L with a turbo option (confirmed). I suppose the move to a turbo is to compete with other V6 powered mini-utes.
AFAIK, Honda's only 2.0 is ours. Which begs the question if the block and bore on the CRV will be the same as the S. To appease the bean counters, I would certainly think it would be the same.
What I see now are factory low compression pistons, shorter rods or different crank, a block with water and oil feed lines for the turbo, a larger oil pump, OEM turbo manifold (probably with a T3 footprint), turbo cams and a ECU programmed to see boost.
The Honda turbo ECU and cams are a stretch because I bet the head design will be different. The turbo manifold might not work because the old CRV motors are mounted across the centerline (FWD configuration) - But we are still left with a beefy oil pump, pistons and rods. And that is all you really need (internally) to build a reliable turbo S.
AFAIK, Honda's only 2.0 is ours. Which begs the question if the block and bore on the CRV will be the same as the S. To appease the bean counters, I would certainly think it would be the same.
What I see now are factory low compression pistons, shorter rods or different crank, a block with water and oil feed lines for the turbo, a larger oil pump, OEM turbo manifold (probably with a T3 footprint), turbo cams and a ECU programmed to see boost.
The Honda turbo ECU and cams are a stretch because I bet the head design will be different. The turbo manifold might not work because the old CRV motors are mounted across the centerline (FWD configuration) - But we are still left with a beefy oil pump, pistons and rods. And that is all you really need (internally) to build a reliable turbo S.
09-17-2001, 06:41 AM
#2
Registered User
Wrong- at least, the CRV has a B20. I may be wrong in that Honda has decided to use a derivative of the F20, but it would require a complete redesign of the chassis to turn the engine around the other way. The bean counters would probably have panned that idea, first.
It's not to say, though, that the turbo wouldn't work- we know the F20 can be made FI. It probably wouldn't be much easier, though, than just starting from scratch. Certainly cheaper, unless you know where one of these is, now, wrecked
It's not to say, though, that the turbo wouldn't work- we know the F20 can be made FI. It probably wouldn't be much easier, though, than just starting from scratch. Certainly cheaper, unless you know where one of these is, now, wrecked
09-17-2001, 07:37 AM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutely right - why I skipped over the B20 escapes me. Damn. I was hoping for a factory bolt in (evidenced by the popularity and simplicity of the SR20DETs). Damn again.
If Honda didnt have such a vast amount of monetary resources - there would be only one 2.0 variant - for several cars.
I'll wait for a set of Crowers and JEs.
If Honda didnt have such a vast amount of monetary resources - there would be only one 2.0 variant - for several cars.
I'll wait for a set of Crowers and JEs.
09-17-2001, 10:32 AM
#4
Registered User
Actually you are almost correct on the variants. The RSX uses the K20C which is similar. They have two engine configurations for that line. The new Hatchback Civic SI will also use a dumbed down 2.0 liter engine.
09-17-2001, 02:46 PM
#5
Registered User
Where did you hear this Joe? All my information to date says Honda is putting a 2.4 liter iVTEC engine in the CRV. Power output is to be around 160 hp and 160 lbs-ft of torque. The same motor will probably power the base Accord.
UL
UL
09-18-2001, 05:26 AM
#7
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Florida
Posts: 208
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was reading a press release on the '02 CRV - what caught my eye was the unusually stout front fascia (ala MDX) - the release went on to mention the engine and forced induction option further along in production.
I agree - like a truck motor
Nissan offers a 2.5 four pot on the Altima and SER. Lots of grunt with no zing.... why??
Is that to be a 4 cylinder? That's a pretty meaty 4...
Nissan offers a 2.5 four pot on the Altima and SER. Lots of grunt with no zing.... why??
Trending Topics
09-18-2001, 03:47 PM
#9
Registered User
you sure that was a U.S. press release?
All the stuff I have says 2.4 liter, balance shafted i-VTEC I4. hp unknown, but torque is supposed to be 162 lbs-ft.
In terms of displacement, its big, but not that big. The base Accord has been running a 2.3 liter for some time and the old Prelude Si was running 2.3 liters as well. With a balance shaft and a low redline, its really no problem. Sure, it won't rev like other VTEC engines, but its for SUVs and base Accords. Compared to the 2.5 liter in the Altima (which will actually be rated at 175 hp, not 180, and a similar level of torque), this isn't bad. I'm betting in the Accord the engine will be tuned up to make a little more power (maybe 180 :-) and possibly sacrifice a little low end torque.
UL
All the stuff I have says 2.4 liter, balance shafted i-VTEC I4. hp unknown, but torque is supposed to be 162 lbs-ft.
In terms of displacement, its big, but not that big. The base Accord has been running a 2.3 liter for some time and the old Prelude Si was running 2.3 liters as well. With a balance shaft and a low redline, its really no problem. Sure, it won't rev like other VTEC engines, but its for SUVs and base Accords. Compared to the 2.5 liter in the Altima (which will actually be rated at 175 hp, not 180, and a similar level of torque), this isn't bad. I'm betting in the Accord the engine will be tuned up to make a little more power (maybe 180 :-) and possibly sacrifice a little low end torque.
UL
09-18-2001, 07:10 PM
#10
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys,
I think you are forgetting something. You build engines for either speed or towing. Speed requires horsepower (such as our cars 240hp, but only approximately 173ft-lbs torque) or towing (such as the engine noted about with 160hp and 160ft-lbs). Certain lifts on cams can compensate for lower hp for a late increase in hp. That is were you find larger displacements as noted in the prelude, but at lower rmp ranges.
This works quite well for I have a race car engine built under these parameters. The engine is a four cylinder producing approximately 380hp with 300ft-lbs of torque.
Remember, if the turbo is manufactured where it can be slightly modified to fit the S2k, you still have to lower the compression to around 8.5:1 in order for it to function. This is one reason the bolt on Supercharger only has around 7 psi of boost.
I'm planning to build a Supercharger system that will deliver approximately 20 psi, but many changes will have to take place.
I think you are forgetting something. You build engines for either speed or towing. Speed requires horsepower (such as our cars 240hp, but only approximately 173ft-lbs torque) or towing (such as the engine noted about with 160hp and 160ft-lbs). Certain lifts on cams can compensate for lower hp for a late increase in hp. That is were you find larger displacements as noted in the prelude, but at lower rmp ranges.
This works quite well for I have a race car engine built under these parameters. The engine is a four cylinder producing approximately 380hp with 300ft-lbs of torque.
Remember, if the turbo is manufactured where it can be slightly modified to fit the S2k, you still have to lower the compression to around 8.5:1 in order for it to function. This is one reason the bolt on Supercharger only has around 7 psi of boost.
I'm planning to build a Supercharger system that will deliver approximately 20 psi, but many changes will have to take place.