Up for the better 2.4

[Potato_112]

Why hasn't Honda put the better 2.4 in the CR-V? What makes the Accord's 4-bangers have 180 hp and the Acura's 200 hp? Is it simply the compression ratio?

[Binky]

I considered buying another Accord before deciding on the CR-V.

I drove both 4 bangers (automatics) in the '08 Accord, 177 & 190hp, respectively. (I haven't driven the Acura.)

The seat-of-the-pants feel is not really discernable, IMO. Probably because peak torque isn't any different between the two motors (161 vs. 162 lb-ft). I own a '04 Accord EX 4 cyl and I was hoping the 190hp '08 was going to impress me - it didn't. The '08 wasn't appreciably quieter or quicker. (The 6 cyl is a different story).

HP was increased reportedly by improving airflow - both intake and exaust, compression wasn't changed (10.5:1).

The improved HP rating will have a greater impact on marketing than performance.

[PINODY]

Why hasn't Honda put the better 2.4 in the CR-V? What makes the Accord's 4-bangers have 180 hp and the Acura's 200 hp? Is it simply the compression ratio?I've been wanting to find out how to tweak the V too ... http://www.hondasuv.com/members/showthread.php?p=282788#post282788

[2RedV's]

I would bet that MPG is the reason.
The more HP you make, the more gas you consume.

[cderalow]

Compression ratio, as well as different cylinder heads, intakes and exhausts on the engines have a significant effect on horsepower.

the higher the compression ratio, the more power you get out of the motor, at the sacrifice of requirements for higher fuel octane.

reasons to not put the higher compression TSX or Accord motors into the CR-V?

- Same amount of torque (which is more important for a AWD vehicle)
- Fuel savings (TSX requires 91+ octane)
- Higher HP rating gives you a better top end speed, which isn't necessary or safe in a crossover SUV
- Power band is further along in the rev range
- peak torque in CR-V is at 4200rpm v 4500, 4400, or 4300rpm
- peak horsepower in CR-V is at 5800rpm v 7000 or 6500rpm
- Better emissions ratings (ULEV-2 v LEV-2 for TSX)
- Cost savings, the high reving TSX & Accord motors cost more to make and replace

Personally, the only engine I think would make a significant difference in the CR-V would be the 2.3L K23A1 out of the RDX turbo. Another 100 ft-lb of torque would really make the CR-V zip, especially since with that motor, the CR-V would probably be 200lb lighter than the RDX, albeit at the sacrifice of fuel economy and costs.

[Sandpebble]

:D The gas engines are done, as the diesels will be taking over. The 2.2 iCDTi runs on ULSD [ultra low sulfur diesel(Tier II Bin 5 15 PPM)] cetane 55 to 60 that has same emissions as gasoline. It gets 36 to 40 MPG HWY US and has as much torque as a gasoline 3.5 V-6. It's 150 HP with 260 Ft. Lbs of torque at 2000 RPMs. So forget the 2.4 and it's good and bad set ups, as it will be history soon. Then we will have the diesel hybrid that will follow soon after with more torque yet even more MPG (probably 45 to 50) but at a cost that may slow it's sales.:D

[cderalow]

:D The gas engines are done, as the diesels will be taking over. The 2.2 iCDTi runs on ULSD [ultra low sulfur diesel(Tier II Bin 5 15 PPM)] cetane 55 to 60 that has same emissions as gasoline. It gets 36 to 40 MPG HWY US and has as much torque as a gasoline 3.5 V-6. It's 150 HP with 260 Ft. Lbs of torque at 2000 RPMs. So forget the 2.4 and it's good and bad set ups, as it will be history soon. Then we will have the diesel hybrid that will follow soon after with more torque yet even more MPG (probably 45 to 50) but at a cost that may slow it's sales.:D


I don't expect the Diesel CR-V's to come to the states until 2009 (if we're lucky), and unfortunately, with Diesel prices what they are, I don't expect them to take off, even considering the better fuel economy as Diesel is over $0.40 more expensive here, and is not as common at local gas stations within city limits.

Also, americans aren't accustomed to diesels in passenger cars (in fact, the only ones that I typically think of, are european cars)

[Davecr-v]

I don't want a diesel but I would like more torque a V6 would be nice I feel at times that the V is underpowered. Honda could make a very fuel efficient V6 with a cyclinder mitigation system that would give you 4 cylinder fuel economy and 6 cylinder performance. Look at Toyota's v6 in the Rav 4 I think it gets 1 less mpg than the 4 cylinder. Americans will not buy diesel's americans aren't going to want to change to diesel we are used to gas engines and their ease o use in cold weather climates also fuel companies will just jack up the price of diesel as they have done before.

[cderalow]

I don't want a diesel but I would like more torque a V6 would be nice I feel at times that the V is underpowered. Honda could make a very fuel efficient V6 with a cyclinder mitigation system that would give you 4 cylinder fuel economy and 6 cylinder performance. Look at Toyota's v6 in the Rav 4 I think it gets 1 less mpg than the 4 cylinder. Americans will not buy diesel's americans aren't going to want to change to diesel we are used to gas engines and their ease o use in cold weather climates also fuel companies will just jack up the price of diesel as they have done before.


the thing is, the CR-V is supposed to be an entry level to the SUV market... the Civic of the small SUVs. Affordable, reliable, and feature packed.

if you want a V6, you have to step up to the Pilot (or Accord in the Civic's case).


I honestly feel like the CR-V has more than enough power for day to day use and highway merging at reasonable speeds etc. Hell, I've had mine up to 100mph with 0 issues, and it was very easy to go from 70 to 100 in minimal time (about as much as it takes in my Civic, if not less, not bad for a car with 50 more horsepower and 1000# more curb weight).

Obviously if you're trying to haul around an additional 1000#, or a trailer, then yes, it's underpowered. But it is more than enough, and the added weight of the V6 would be seriously detrimental to the CR-V's handling characteristics, which is what really swayed my opinion on the CR-V v Rav 4 decision (you wouldn't catch me buying anything other than a Toyota or Honda anymore).

[Hughesy]

Why hasn't Honda put the better 2.4 in the CR-V? What makes the Accord's 4-bangers have 180 hp and the Acura's 200 hp? Is it simply the compression ratio?

I don't know about the US engine range, but based on those available in the UK there might also be differences in the VTEC and throttle system.

Here, the 2.0 and 2.4 engine available in the Accord are very similar, but there are some differences apart from the displacement:
The 2.0 K20A6 155 HP has VTEC only on the intake side and a traditional cable throttle
The 2.4 K24A3 190 HP has VTEC on intake & exhaust, and Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) i.e. fly by wire throttle.

The 2.4 also has no exhaust gas recirculation feature, and a slightly lower compression ratio.
Given the differences, it is strange that the 2.4 has 20% more displacement and about 20% more power (you might expect more, given the extra technology). Also the 2.4 drinks more fuel.
How about an S2000 engine? 240 HP from 2.0 litres

[Davecr-v]

the thing is, the CR-V is supposed to be an entry level to the SUV market... the Civic of the small SUVs. Affordable, reliable, and feature packed.

if you want a V6, you have to step up to the Pilot (or Accord in the Civic's case).


I honestly feel like the CR-V has more than enough power for day to day use and highway merging at reasonable speeds etc. Hell, I've had mine up to 100mph with 0 issues, and it was very easy to go from 70 to 100 in minimal time (about as much as it takes in my Civic, if not less, not bad for a car with 50 more horsepower and 1000# more curb weight).

Obviously if you're trying to haul around an additional 1000#, or a trailer, then yes, it's underpowered. But it is more than enough, and the added weight of the V6 would be seriously detrimental to the CR-V's handling characteristics, which is what really swayed my opinion on the CR-V v Rav 4 decision (you wouldn't catch me buying anything other than a Toyota or Honda anymore).

Yeah but the Pilot gets awful gas mileage and is to big I admit the car is fine but maybe a Turbo or something to boost some perormance; however, I would rather have a tiptronic transmisson

[cderalow]

I don't know about the US engine range, but based on those available in the UK there might also be differences in the VTEC and throttle system.

Here, the 2.0 and 2.4 engine available in the Accord are very similar, but there are some differences apart from the displacement:
The 2.0 K20A6 155 HP has VTEC only on the intake side and a traditional cable throttle
The 2.4 K24A3 190 HP has VTEC on intake & exhaust, and Electronic Throttle Control (ETC) i.e. fly by wire throttle.

The 2.4 also has no exhaust gas recirculation feature, and a slightly lower compression ratio.
Given the differences, it is strange that the 2.4 has 20% more displacement and about 20% more power (you might expect more, given the extra technology). Also the 2.4 drinks more fuel.
How about an S2000 engine? 240 HP from 2.0 litres


S2000 is a different Honda monster.

The 4 engines we're particularly dealing with (K24Z1 CR-V, K24A2 TSX, K24A8 Accord LX, K24A3 Accord EX) are all pretty much the same.

the major differences internally is the cam profiles. all have similar vtec engagement points (except TSX which is an actual VTEC motor similar to Civic Si/RSX-S).

basically a slightly different cam profile and some different intakes/exhausts results in the minor power differences.

in the US the CR-V is only offered with the 2.4L K24Z1, which has a 166/161 rating.

Personally, I'd love to see the K20Z3 from the Civic Si in the CR-V... 6 speed + 197hp, but you'd lose quite a bit of torque, though it's a true DOHC VTEC, with a very audible engagement at higher revs.

[PINODY]

... in the US the CR-V is only offered with the 2.4L K24Z1, which has a 166HP/161TQ rating.The CRV and the Nissan Rogue weigh in at about the same 3500 pounds and offer similar MPGs, but the Rogue is peppier due to a little more lower end Torque. :cool: With that as a goal, are there any basic modifications to achieve a little more low end Torque out of the V? :)

[cderalow]

The CRV and the Nissan Rogue weigh in at about the same 3500 pounds and offer similar MPGs, but the Rogue is peppier due to a little more lower end Torque. :cool: With that as a goal, are there any basic modifications to achieve a little more low end Torque out of the V? :)


Without doing a ton of work... probably not. The head designs on all of the 2.4L engines produce similar amounts of torque.

The only thing I could think of, would be finding the cylinder head from a K20A (JDM RSX-R aka Honda Integra Type R DC5 chasis), and bolting that on, but you need to build the bottom end of the motor up to handle it, because the resulting engine, could put a piston into orbit if the rod was to snap.

Other option is doing the similar with a head from a K20A2 (RSX-S) and using that.

Either route involves quite a bit of money.

For real tuning info on the engines of the Gen 2+ CR-V motors, try here: k20a.org

basically a resource for all k series motors, including frankenstein builds such as the above mentioned ones.

[PINODY]

Speaking about HP :p just had to share ... http://youtube.com/watch?v=z2lM5SdMVlc&feature=related

[ranken]

While we are on the subject of performance; has anyone ever run a crv wide open? Just wondering what the top speed really is? 2006 crv.

[cderalow]

While we are on the subject of performance; has anyone ever run a crv wide open? Just wondering what the top speed really is? 2006 crv.


I got to a bit over 100mph before I felt like it was a unstable enough to not risk further.

It's a large vehicle with a high center of gravity, and it's not very aerodynamic. at 100+, it felt like my Civic used to feel at those speeds.... like the front end wanted to come off the ground, which resulted in very light and effortless steering... and not in a good way.

I believe there is a governor at the top end.. somewhere around 118 most likely, but if one were to remove that, I would expect it to be limited by drag at around 130 most likely.

[Davecr-v]

I got up to 107 car felt fine that being said it didn't feel like a Lamborghini the truth is the lack of power or toque is noticeable at low speeds and uphills at least to me.

[1ownerT]

I got up to 107 car felt fine that being said it didn't feel like a Lamborghini the truth is the lack of power or toque is noticeable at low speeds and uphills at least to me.

I agree completely. More torque at highway cruising speed would be nice, that is my only complaint. The constant down shifts on minimal changes in elevation are quite annoying and they have to impact the mpg's every time the revs jump.

[sleeksilver]

I don't want a diesel but I would like more torque a V6 would be nice I feel at times that the V is underpowered. Honda could make a very fuel efficient V6 with a cyclinder mitigation system that would give you 4 cylinder fuel economy and 6 cylinder performance. Look at Toyota's v6 in the Rav 4 I think it gets 1 less mpg than the 4 cylinder. Americans will not buy diesel's americans aren't going to want to change to diesel we are used to gas engines and their ease o use in cold weather climates also fuel companies will just jack up the price of diesel as they have done before.

We will probably never see a V6 in the CR-V but we could end up seeing the K24 out of the current Accord EX (190HP) or the TSXs K24A1 tuned for more low end. The CR-V wasn't designed for a V6, and its platform sibling (RDX) uses a turbo'd K23 :)

Have you ever seen the real world figures of that Toyota V6? Many people aren't getting even close to the published numbers....

[cderalow]

We will probably never see a V6 in the CR-V but we could end up seeing the K24 out of the current Accord EX (190HP) or the TSXs K24A1 tuned for more low end. The CR-V wasn't designed for a V6, and its platform sibling (RDX) uses a turbo'd K23 :)

Have you ever seen the real world figures of that Toyota V6? Many people aren't getting even close to the published numbers....

personally, i'd rather keep the one we've got... the bottom end of the TSX and Accord aren't as strong!

[chippergsr]

Without doing a ton of work... probably not. The head designs on all of the 2.4L engines produce similar amounts of torque.

The only thing I could think of, would be finding the cylinder head from a K20A (JDM RSX-R aka Honda Integra Type R DC5 chasis), and bolting that on, but you need to build the bottom end of the motor up to handle it, because the resulting engine, could put a piston into orbit if the rod was to snap.

Other option is doing the similar with a head from a K20A2 (RSX-S) and using that.

Either route involves quite a bit of money.

For real tuning info on the engines of the Gen 2+ CR-V motors, try here: k20a.org

basically a resource for all k series motors, including frankenstein builds such as the above mentioned ones.

ive heard that you can just take an rsx-s or tsx head with no mods to the bottom end, use a hondata ecu and maybe some other small things and get 20-30 more horsepower while still using 87 octane!

whether this is true or not is debatable but i read it in a honda mag
how cool would that be
maybe a little expensive

[2RedV's]

Whatever engine that Honda decides to put in a CR-V, it has to have more low end torque than many of the current crop of Honda car engines due to the CR-V's weight. It takes more torque to get it rolling.

[cderalow]

ive heard that you can just take an rsx-s or tsx head with no mods to the bottom end, use a hondata ecu and maybe some other small things and get 20-30 more horsepower while still using 87 octane!

whether this is true or not is debatable but i read it in a honda mag
how cool would that be
maybe a little expensive

changing the head does two things:

yields better airflow and timing control (as well as real VTEC and not iVTEC)
ups the compression ratio

typically, you need to run premium in the tsx & rsx-s, and the same should be done for any engine using the cylinder heads from them.

swapping the heads will require hondata, and a new vtec solenoid.

No change to the transmission or bottom end of the motor need to be done, but that sort of swap isn't typically done without the intent of putting some serious power through the system...

You normally see that sort of frankenstein in drag cars...