Honda CR-V Owners Club Forums banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
.....on top of the valve cover, is it just a silencer and sticker holder?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
So it could be removed/capped and not be detrimental to performance, since it's just a silencer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
79 Posts
Neat bit of plastic, after some quick Googling. I think the Helmholtz resonator may contribute in some way to the CR-V having a bit more power than the Civic version of the 1.5L turbo through volumetric efficiency improvements in the turbo feed.

Of course I could be way off base.

It appears that Honda has added two different chambers, perhaps to address a wider range of intake volume.

LeRoy
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
And from my observation, it also seems to serve a third purpose by making the engine look more significant in physical size then it really is under the CR-V's hood. If you've ever looked at the L series engines under the hood over a 10th gen Civic turbo model or any Fit, then you'll know the L series engine is tiny compared to the K series or even the almost phased out R series engine (current HR-V engine). The Helmholtz resonator adds a good 5+ inches to the top of the engine to fill in what would otherwise be empty space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
644 Posts
And from my observation, it also seems to serve a third purpose by making the engine look more significant in physical size then it really is under the CR-V's hood. If you've ever looked at the L series engines under the hood over a 10th gen Civic turbo model or any Fit, then you'll know the L series engine is tiny compared to the K series or even the almost phased out R series engine (current HR-V engine). The Helmholtz resonator adds a good 5+ inches to the top of the engine to fill in what would otherwise be empty space.
Exactly, fluffed up like that bag of designer chips. Some venting here: http://www.crvownersclub.com/forums/137-2017-present-official-specs-features-etc-gen-5/133674-2017-ex-ex-l-touring-half-engine-higher-price.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
And as I said in my reply to your earlier thread, you got it exactly backwards as to which engine has to work harder to deliver a given amount of acceleration. (The 1.5T can deliver peak torque throughout most of the rev range, while the 2.4 needs to rev high to do so.)

There's nothing unnatural or "fluffed up" about being about being able to get more power out of a smaller engine. My last car was an '04 Passat using an engine released in '01. That got 170HP out of a 1.8T. I don't think 190HP out of a 1.5T 16 years later is really that outlandish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #10 (Edited)
If I can figure out a way to safely cap those 2 tubes, I may remove the box as a trial. Looks like 2 10mm bolts is all that holds it on.....and with it gone, you can see that bad little boy "HEMI" motor. Would it be a "HEMBO" or a "TURMI"?:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Back in the early 80's, Saab Turbos were considered pretty fast cars. Once the Turbo boost kicked in there were few cars that could accelerate as fast from around 30 to 70 mph, and in 1985-86 when they added the intercooler they were even faster and I can attest to hitting 135 mph and was still accelerating when I ran out of straight highway. These Saab engines were 1996 cc engines and were 135 and 165 hp respectively. Now Honda is getting 180-190 hp out of a 1.5 L Turbo. It seems like a lot of owners are under appreciating the capabilities of this engine. Granted, the CVT is mated to it to get great gas mileage in most of its applications rather than acceleration or top speed being the focus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
And as I said in my reply to your earlier thread, you got it exactly backwards as to which engine has to work harder to deliver a given amount of acceleration. (The 1.5T can deliver peak torque throughout most of the rev range, while the 2.4 needs to rev high to do so.)

There's nothing unnatural or "fluffed up" about being about being able to get more power out of a smaller engine.
Correct, and Honda isn't the only one going this route. The current Ford Escape, Hyundai Tucson, and new Chevy Equinox all utilize a 1.5L-1.6L turbo 4 for some of their trims. Though all of those compact SUVs with those engines have been tested by reviewers as being both slower and less fuel efficient then the CR-V's 1.5L turbo 4.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
The wife and I test drove the RAV4, Forester, CX-5 and the CR-V (the top 4 rated compact SUVs in ConsumerReports for 2017). Flip a 4 sided coin and you will have a winner amoung those 4. We picked the CR-V 1.5L based on the 0-60 mph and mpg numbers shown in ConsumerReports. Three of the 4 have CVTs.....we thought Honda had the best feeling/driving CVT.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,073 Posts
Discussion Starter #14 (Edited)
Remove post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
242 Posts
If I can figure out a way to safely cap those 2 tubes, I may remove the box as a trial. Looks like 2 10mm bolts is all that holds it on.....and with it gone, you can see that bad little boy "HEMI" motor. Would it be a "HEMBO" or a "TURMI"?
I've been looking into getting the Civic 1.5t intake tubes as this would eliminate the box. I'm not in any hurry but if I see them on eBay for cheap I will pick them up.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top