I'm sure you've all heard about the downside of Honda being that one needs to be at 5000 RPM to move at all.
I always noticed decent pickup in my HF, and I rarely go above 2000RPM.

Anyway, I was thumbing through the sales brochure for the 1990 CRX, and I noticed in the specs:
The HF makes 90 ft lbs of Torque at 2,000 RPM
The others all made max torque at 5,400 RPM

I thought this was interesting.
Was this done, specifically with the knowledge that the HF would usually never see higher RPM?
Has Honda ever made any other engine that made decent torque, especially at such a low RPM?

I just thought it was interesting, and a little out of character for Honda...So I was just curious as to whether anyone has any insight into this.

 

Yea the HF is amazing, especially because it gets like 50 MPG. If you do low end torque, you lose high end power. Alot. Not good for racing. However, it is good for around town driving.

I wish Honda would remake the CRX HF. I would buy one in a heartbeat if it good as good of gas mileage as the old school HF's.

 

i can't wait to get my d15b6 rebuilt and start enjoying the 50mpg. Even with a dead cylinder it's getting 25mpg haha.

 

Only 8 valves in the head. More back pressure usually means more low end torque. That's why B18A/Bs have so much low end torque, low lift cams.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by mikerbike &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Only 8 valves in the head. More back pressure usually means more low end torque. That's why B18A/Bs have so much low end torque, low lift cams.</TD></TR></TABLE>

So, why is it, technically, more backpressure leads to more torque?

If I recall, a longer stroke leads to increased torque, which is why Semis have SUPER long blocks.

I was unaware of the backpressure adding to it.


And yeah, I wish Honda would make another CRX HF-esque car. I would LOVE if they made a stripped down Insight (looks like a CRX, sorta); not a hybrid, just the 1.5L in it, super light, super basic; no A/C, no power anything.
If they made a Super BASIC car, with a nice low price, and good mpg, I'd totally buy one new.
It makes me laugh, people brag about how they get 50mpg with their fancy-dancy hybrid, which has ___, ____, ____, ____, & ____ technology!
And then I tell them I get 50mpg...with a 15 year old car. It blows people away, sepecially cause it's a real car, unlike the metro [No disrepect to the Metro, i like them]


Modified by TheSSG at 4:44 AM 2/4/2005

 

Actually wasn't the HF model reated at something crazy like 55 miles to the gallon when new?

Does anyone know what the compression is on the HF engine? It's pretty unusual to see any 4 cylinder make that much torque at 2000 rpms.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX_1.8T &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Actually wasn't the HF model reated at something crazy like 55 miles to the gallon when new?

Does anyone know what the compression is on the HF engine? It's pretty unusual to see any 4 cylinder make that much torque at 2000 rpms.</TD></TR></TABLE>

The EPA was 49/52 for the 49 state emissions.

The Compression is 9.6:1, compared to (I think it is) 9.2:1.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> It's pretty unusual to see any 4 cylinder make that much torque at 2000 rpms. </TD></TR></TABLE>
That's EXACTLY my point. That's just nuts!
It reminds me of the VW Diesels in the Golfs (mkII), that's 98 @2500.
It's so wierd. Normally, that much torque @ such a low RPM is for Diesel.

 

its not that they make so much downlow, its the fact they make nothing up high, everyting in the intake and exhaust is totally restrictive giving it alot of back-pressure

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TheSSG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I always noticed decent pickup in my HF, and I rarely go above 2000RPM</TD></TR></TABLE>

Holy crap why do you shift so low I have an HF but i'm usually shifting at like 3-3500. But yeah off the line isn't too bad for a 62 hp motor.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by TheSSG &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If I recall, a longer stroke leads to increased torque, which is why Semis have SUPER long blocks.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

Generally yes, besides since it revs low and makes power low too, it must have a low rs ratio for sure. Those are v8 features.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX_1.8T &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">It's pretty unusual to see any 4 cylinder make that much torque at 2000 rpms.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Its not that much torque. It's a lot of torque compared to the hp it makes. Hell, even my std makes 92 lbs/ft of torque and 70 hp. But the difference must be the internals and combustion chamber geometry.

 

When I said "that much", I mean't that much at only 2,000 rpm's. Which is kind of amazing that any non-diesel 4 cylinder 1.5 could make that much at such a low engine speed, without the assist of an electric motor or something.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by ukdm crx &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Holy crap why do you shift so low I have an HF but i'm usually shifting at like 3-3500. But yeah off the line isn't too bad for a 62 hp motor.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I don't see a need to go that high. Besides, it's winter right now, so One should try to keep it below 3K (Until it warms up).
And it just helps me get better gas mileage. The biggest loss is in acceleration.
53.89mpg is my record

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by CRX4u2NV &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">its not that they make so much downlow, its the fact they make nothing up high, everyting in the intake and exhaust is totally restrictive giving it alot of back-pressure</TD></TR></TABLE>
Why is it that backpressure does this?
I don't get it. I really don't have an educated guess as to why it would...

And i would still say it is a pretty decent amount, especially cause it's so low down.
The DX does 89@4500 (And 30 more HP), and the Si 100@5000 (With 46 more HP).

It's interesting, you have Less, or only ~10% more Torque, but with 50-75% more HP with the other engines.

Which also brings me to my other question:
Did Honda, and if "no," why not, ever make another engine of whose focus was torque?

 

Ive been using my HF for 3 yrs to tow my cbr929 back and forth on 2000 mile round trips with no problems whatsover and i had to go over two high bridges crossing the Mississippi river. But the mpg go down to like 25 mpg

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 31flavorscivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yea the HF is amazing, especially because it gets like 50 MPG. If you do low end torque, you lose high end power. Alot. Not good for racing. However, it is good for around town driving.

I wish Honda would remake the CRX HF. I would buy one in a heartbeat if it good as good of gas mileage as the old school HF's.</TD></TR></TABLE>

they do, its called the insight...and it gets better gas mileage and has power acc. too...

 

Ultra light, no extras.
Good torque out of the corners
trick suspension.

Sounds like a good STS2 car.... why did i get the Si ?

 

better suspension, better brakes, better transmission...

 

The transmission is WAY better.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by 31flavorscivic &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yea the HF is amazing, especially because it gets like 50 MPG. If you do low end torque, you lose high end power. Alot. Not good for racing. However, it is good for around town driving.

I wish Honda would remake the CRX HF. I would buy one in a heartbeat if it good as good of gas mileage as the old school HF's.</TD></TR></TABLE>


I know someone said something already, but here I go anyway.

2004 Honda Insight
Engine 5-speed MT CVT
Type: Aluminum-Alloy In-Line 3-Cylinder In-Line 3-Cylinder
Displacement (cc) 995 995
Horsepower @ rpm (SAE net / with IMA) 67@5700 / 73@5700 67@5700 / 73@5700
Torque (lb.-ft. @ rpm / with IMA) 66@4800 / 91@2000 66@4800 / 91@2000
Compression Ratio 10.8:1 10.3:1
Valve Train : 12-Valve SOHC VTEC Standard Standard
Fuel System: Multi-Point Fuel Injection Lean Burn Standard
Ignition System : Direct System w/ Immobilizer Standard Standard
Emission Rating ULEV SULEV-2
Idle Stop Feature Standard Standard
Tune-Up Interval 105,000-Miles 105,000-Miles
* California Air Resources Board ULEV-certified in California and parts of the Northeast; LEV-rated in the rest of the country.

 

My std D15b1 achieves maxium torque at just 3000 rpms I believe. So I rarely ever rev it up past that only if I need to get outta somewhere quick. Also, my friends yell at me for shifting too early, but they just don't understand that once I go over 3000, the engine barely pulls any more. I just wished they would own a base hatch, then they know.

But your right, acceleration sucks though, but I achieve about 38 mpg reguarly in mine and that's city driving too. And people still can't believe that it's a 15 year old car and I still can beat a hybrid if we race anyday. It's great!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Shaguar47 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I still can beat a hybrid if we race anyday. It's great!</TD></TR></TABLE>

Try this one on for size.

http://www.fast-autos.net/mits....html

OK, so maybe it won't ever be available, but I can dream can't I?