OT: So much for Honda reliability

[Old Hat]

--- the DOHC B-1600 V-tech hound dawg was the automotive worlds highest hp per cubic inch engine ever in mass production when it came out,,,
normally aspirated of course,,, 160 ponies out of a NA 1.6 liter,,,
those that don't have respect for honda simply do not know much about honda's --
either that or it's too much excitement and they know they would just be soiling themselves behind the wheel...

Their not perfect --- and like so many car companies they are now getting further away from what makes up a good car,,,

now it's all about gadgets and gimmicks for just about everybody... I won't be a wrench too much longer...

Unerstood, and agree, but what would you rather be ? Realy?

[madmetric8x1]

Honda vs Toyota

When I first started looking at Japanese cars I found the Honda had what I call "kidney pounder" seats. I got a Toyota because the seats were more comfortable. I have a 2000 Camry, and before that a 1992 Camry. Neither burn or burned oil (both 4 cyl) and always passed California Smog checks every two years. I replaced the belt as recommended on the '92 at a place that specialized in just doing that, so it was cheap to have done. The newer Camry has not reached 100k yet. It has a non-interference engine which means if the timing belt breaks the engine will just stop, without sending pistons and valves smashing together as in an "interference" engine. The older interference engines wanted you to change that belt at 60k to avoid interference. Now they recommend 100k for timing belt on Toyota's of my vintage (2000) and I think new Honda's and Toyota's is something like 150K or more now. Both of these Japanese cars are good, just those kidney pounder Honda seats. So, here's one, my Dad was among the first US occupation forces in Japan after they surrendered WW2. None of the Japanese people had access to gasoline then, so lots of human and animal powered carts in use, even a few steam engines. There was one guy everybody knew about who made some very smokey liquid fuel out of charcoal, and he would ride his smoky old engined motorcycle all over the place. Everybody knew him as Mr Honda. No kidding.

[aostling]

If you're looking for a high quality oil try http://www.texasrefinery.com/

I would do, but they don't make the 0W-20 synthetic required by my 2015 Forester. Since Subaru specifies oil changes every 6,000 miles for this model I buy a 5-quart jug of Quaker State synthetic at Walmart for $22.

[saltmine]

Interesting, Boomer. Most of the technological data I've read claim that controlling the exhaust valves is the major key. A lot of newer engines have controls on both intake and exhaust valves, but I think the cam phaser on the exhaust is primarily for emissions control. Many of the smaller displacement Fords have them, and my sources claim they are notoriously unreliable....In fact, one way they can detect a failed phaser is to do a tailpipe probe. If the exhaust emissions are out of spec, the phaser is jammed. Toyota is another manufacturer who reports frequent cam phaser failures. As much as I hate to admit it, GM tried variable cam timing on their 5.3 V-8 engines briefly, and ruined the reputation of a very efficient, reliable engine in the process.

From what I've heard, Honda started out manufacturing replacement piston rings for mopeds and small motorcycles before embarking on his first attempt to build a motorcycle. Many years later, he started producing a sports car, with a twin cam four-cylinder, but it's major claim to fame was it's peaky performance and numerous oil leaks. This was soon followed by the Honda Coupe and Sedan, which were sold domestically with four-stroke, air cooled, two cylinder engines, and five-speed manual transmissions. The engine was 360cc's loosely based on the Honda 450 motorcycle. When it was imported to the US, they re-designed the engine and increased the displacement to 600cc's. Unfortunately, a weak, low-volume oil pump and American owners driving on the freeways doomed the roller and needle bearing bottom end.
The car was not designed to be driven any distance, any faster than 50 mph. I should know.... my youngest brother was a Honda motorcycle mechanic, who just happened to have owned as many as 10 Honda 600's at one time. He got to where he could drop the engine / transaxle in 20 minutes, in his driveway, with a floor jack and two jack stands.

[A.K. Boomer]

for maximum power production the intake is always your dominant valve,

on old race engines that have both the intake and the exhaust on the same shaft and that are held down to a rule book of using stock cams but allow for timing change you always retard the cam for more ponies up high, it robs the exhaust valve because it want's to be advanced, but the intake rules and more power is produced simply because it's flow is carrying the "goods" --- the spent goods will find their way out...

you rob peter to pay paul because paul pays you back a higher reward...



all the VVT designs Iv ever seen that just use one phaser have it placed on the intake cam...

including the honda CRV that I have in the shop right now for a valve adjustment...

[saltmine]

The Mercury "Mistake" four-cylinder has a cam phaser on the exhaust cam. And when the phaser gets stuck or fails, the car runs like cr*p.
Pardon me for being a bit skeptical, but, I've seen just about all of the camshaft configurations available on a dyno. Trust me, sometimes all of the complexity and added friction barely make the power gains onto the ledger. When I raced SCCA out in the "Granola State" (What ain't fruits & nuts...is flakes) we ran a Datsun 510 with a 1.6 engine. Won a lot of races with the cam retarded one or two teeth. Of course to deal with the poor exhaust extraction, we ran a Datsun 1.8 cylinder head.(virtually identical to a 1.6 head...except bigger valves). Exhaust emissions are usually handled by changing the timing of the exhaust valves, especially NOX pollution..
For the speed and operating conditions most of today's engines operate in, one camshaft would be sufficient.

[Willy]

...............As much as I hate to admit it, GM tried variable cam timing on their 5.3 V-8 engines briefly, and ruined the reputation of a very efficient, reliable engine in the process.

......

A close friend of mine recently purchased a new GMC truck with the variable valve timing and active fuel management (cylinder deactivation) and he could not be happier with both the power and the mileage.
As a matter of fact all three of GM's EcoTec3 engines, the 4.3 V-6, the 5.3 V-8, and the 6.2 V-8 all now feature direct injection, cylinder deactivation and variable valve timing, it has been a huge success. The old Chevy small block doesn't need to stay in stuck in the 50's forever and it's successful new technologies like this that have allowed it to remain competitive.

GM has had very good results with VVT, I know my ex employer had about 150 of them that were driven and worked hard and the guys in the shop loved em' because they hardly ever did more than routine service on them.
Come on Saltmine I thought you were a Chevy guy.

[A.K. Boomer]

The 2004 CRV that just left my shop tonight has both a VVT and the V-tech system both on just the intake valves - the exhaust is just standard operation,,,

it's all about controlling the volumetric efficiency's and giving just what's needed for the time being,,,

4 valve heads are great --- but down low with fairly radical cam lift and duration they simply fall on their face, they flow too good - and with improper cam timing it only gets worse,,,

to combine the vvt and the vtec really is about as good as you get with keeping the flow optimum for any given situation...

the one intake valve that is almost inop. down low basically opens just enough to keep fuel from pooling up behind it,,, then at a certain pre-determined rpm engages with the other that's extra radical, then the engine comes on like a striped assed ape... good low end - great mid range and excellent high end all with improved efficiency --- what's not to luv...

[Old Hat]

This is great learning for me and fun.
All I knew before this was, if I lost my muffler with a 93 Accord 4 cylinder,
The deep roar on the freeway is awsome if you drop it into 3rd, and run it out thru 4th and 5th.

Catalitic was long gone too. and was just a st8 pipe.

[CalM]

Has anyone actually experienced a timing belt failure that was not brought on by the failing of some other mechanical part?

I run Audis. Not new ones, they are a bit spendy. All the Audi officianados are anal about "timing belt changes". I prefer to call the service a "water pump and tensioner pully change", for those are the only parts I have seen fail in normal service. The timing belt takes a bad rap for the other parts! ;-)

One case of dissatisfaction does not undermine the many satisfied stories unspoken!

[RichR]

Has anyone actually experienced a timing belt failure that was not brought on by the failing of some other mechanical part?

I have. The timing belt on my 93 Ford Escort wore out 2 or 3 years ago at 85,000 miles.

[Old Hat]

Has anyone actually experienced a timing belt failure that was not brought on by the failing of some other mechanical part?

One case of dissatisfaction does not undermine the many satisfied stories unspoken!

I have, on a 93 Honda, pushed it too far and lost the engine. My fault not Honda's.
Wankle engines died off like a plague hit them. the Plague was [email protected] Americans
to stupid to follow the book and add oil. I witnessed a dealer's shop with 5 torn down at one time.
Shop manager was close to loosing it!! Profanities stacked on end about the poor car's owners.

[radkins]

I have. The timing belt on my 93 Ford Escort wore out 2 or 3 years ago at 85,000 miles.

Which was 15,000 miles PAST the scheduled replacement interval!

That was a failure due to neglect! The service interval for changing that belt was 60,000 miles and Ford CLEARLY stated that not only in the service schedule but they even went so far as to place a sticker in plain view on the timing cover and on the radiator support! The belt was simple to change and cost about $22 IIRC, I changed a bunch of them and I never saw one fail at under 60,000 miles, most went well in excess of 100,000 miles before breaking at which time the owners would start lambasting Ford for those "cheap unreliable belts" when CLEARLY the owner was at fault!

[vpt]

I had a belt fail on a winter beater I bought for my wife once.

It was a 1992 honda civic with some D16something in it. Original belt, only lasted to 220,000 miles, pos. Replaced the belt, started car, and sent it on its way. It did have a little valve tick at idle after the belt break but still ran fine.

[vpt]

Which was 15,000 miles PAST the scheduled replacement interval!

That was a failure due to neglect! The service interval for changing that belt was 60,000 miles and Ford CLEARLY stated that not only in the service schedule but they even went so far as to place a sticker in plain view on the timing cover and on the radiator support! The belt was simple to change and cost about $22 IIRC, I changed a bunch of them and I never saw one fail at under 60,000 miles, most went well in excess of 100,000 miles before breaking at which time the owners would start lambasting Ford for those "cheap unreliable belts" when CLEARLY the owner was at fault!

Ford does use a narrower belt than other makes of vehicles. I would assume because it is cheaper and ford is a cheap bastard. Porsche also used narrow timing belts for some reason, I don't understand the logic.

Subaru uses a nice wide belt as well as honda and mitsubishi.

If I had my old puter up and running yet I could show many pictures of the different motors I have built for customers and the differences in the belt widths, all the different cam setups of the different motors and all that. But unfortunately I am not and I only have pics from the last month or so on this puter..