|
|
|
|
 |
thunderbird1100
 |
|
If they do come out with the CRX I almost hope they use the K20a3 for the Si version (if there is one). Which sounds most plausible over all other engine choices (unless im looking over one). Here's what I'm hoping for...
Engine/Power: K20a3, 160-170hp
Curb Weight: 2400lbs-2500lbs (MAX)
Skidpad: .88g-.9g (300ft)
Slalom: 68mph-69mph (700ft)
Wheels/tires: 16x7 on SUMMER tires sized 205/45
Pricepoint: $17,000-$18,000 msrp
|
gilbert
|
|
I agree. If they can keep the weight below 2400lbs, the K20A3 would be a good fit. I'd love to see them get the weight around 2000lbs, but I know I'm dreaming. ;-)
Gilbert
|
TonyEX
|
|
Hell no! If it's gonna be the performance leader then it needs something like the K20A2 or K20Z1 -or better.
The K20A3 would be perfect mated to an AT5 and installed into the EX. After all, the torquey, relatively low redlined A3 would match an automatic very well.
With MT6.
With an LSD.
For several years, we used to own both performance versions of the Civic and Integra (hmmm .. just like now...) and our 89 CRX Si was just about as fast as our 86.5 Integra 5dr LS MT. And indeed, it felt quicker.
As the Civic line moves upwards, Honda should drop the entry level RSX and move it up a bit. Then the CRX could come in with a nice 200bhp, Mt6, LSD, etc... just make sure to put in a nice little back seat this time though. Otherwise it won't sell. (*) see below
And don't forget to also market a Civic Si with the same powertrain.
Almost like those days of yore, when the only difference between the Civic Si and the CRX Si was 100bhps, a backseat and a three inch longer wheelbase.
(*) You gotta remember that CRX sales were hurt towards the end by lack of a rear seat. And the Civic Coupe was in many ways the direct descendant of the CRX.
thunderbird1100 wrote:
If they do come out with the CRX I almost hope they use the K20a3 for the Si version (if there is one). Which sounds most plausible over all other engine choices (unless im looking over one). Here's what I'm hoping for...
Engine/Power: K20a3, 160-170hp
Curb Weight: 2400lbs-2500lbs (MAX)
Skidpad: .88g-.9g (300ft)
Slalom: 68mph-69mph (700ft)
Wheels/tires: 16x7 on SUMMER tires sized 205/45
Pricepoint: $17,000-$18,000 msrp
|
|
kiwikungfu
|
|
|
i'd rather have the 2 seater for the additional weight loss. and as much power as i can get. I love my del sol (3rd generation crx) and have never wished for rear seats. the civic can be the 4 seat option, and other people will get that. i actually would rather see a new honda beat, built like a even more compact MR s2000, or a MA over-powered del sol, or a RL type R targa coupe. i'd probably be the only person who would buy one though. =) anyway, i'll buy the next CRX if it comes out and if it is sporty enough.
|
franckv
|
|
thunderbird1100 wrote:
If they do come out with the CRX I almost hope they use the K20a3 for the Si version (if there is one). Which sounds most plausible over all other engine choices (unless im looking over one). Here's what I'm hoping for...
Engine/Power: K20a3, 160-170hp
Curb Weight: 2400lbs-2500lbs (MAX)
Skidpad: .88g-.9g (300ft)
Slalom: 68mph-69mph (700ft)
Wheels/tires: 16x7 on SUMMER tires sized 205/45
Pricepoint: $17,000-$18,000 msrp
|
An output of 160-170 hp might be just not enough to define the forthcoming CRX as a class leader. Here's what is coming our way in Europe:
- the Opel/Vauxhall Astra VXR: 2.0 litre 4, turbo, 235 hp.
- the new Mini Cooper S: 1.6 litre 4, 170 hp. Yes, it should crack the 100hp/L mark!
- the Mercedes A200T: 2.0 litre 4, turbo, 193 hp.
- the Audi S3: 2.0 litre 4, turbo, 260 hp!!
- the Citroën C4 VTS: 1.8 litre 4, 180 hp. And it has a split tailgate window, just like the original CRX.
- the Ford Fiesta RS: 2.0 litre 4, 200hp.
- the Seat Leon Cupra: 2.0 litre 4, turbo, 200 hp.
- the Opel/Vauxhall Corsa VXR: 1.6 litre 4, turbo, 175 hp.
- the Mazda MPS3: 2.0 litre 4, turbo, 240 hp.
- the Renaultsport Clio: 2.0 litre 4, 200 hp.
And that's without mentioning the Bimmer M1: 3.0 litre 6, 300 hp, but it's slightly over the top, isn't it?
And some present contenders are already ahead, in the output department: the new VW Golf GTI (2.0 litre 4, turbo, 200 hp), the Peugeot 206 RC (2.0 litre 4, 180 hp) and the Renault Clio RS (2.0 litre 4, 182 hp).
Anyway, we could have the edge with a more restricted weight, if we don't with the power... But it looks like Honda wants to set the pace, so we should be reasonably confident: the next CRX will be a real charger, just like its glorious elder is.
|
Power Of Dreams
|
|
Honda has to have a new sub-2 liter engine coming out for the next Civic, and since a 2.0 liter CRX would basically be an Integra, a new CR-X needs to be smaller, and have a higher-revving engine.
What I would like to see:
K16 DOHC i-VTEC with 8000 RPM redline and 140 horsepower for standard models, and a 160 horsepower version for the Si.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but it should keep the weight of the car down and give it the high-revving characteristics Honda fans love.
|
TonyEX
|
|
You're asking for a Fit SiR.
Power Of Dreams wrote:
Honda has to have a new sub-2 liter engine coming out for the next Civic, and since a 2.0 liter CRX would basically be an Integra, a new CR-X needs to be smaller, and have a higher-revving engine.
What I would like to see:
K16 DOHC i-VTEC with 8000 RPM redline and 140 horsepower for standard models, and a 160 horsepower version for the Si.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but it should keep the weight of the car down and give it the high-revving characteristics Honda fans love.
|
|
gilbert
|
|
Wrong. If you put the K20A3 into a lightweight car, it will do just fine. It's all about power-to-weight.
Gilbert
TonyE wrote:
Hell no! If it's gonna be the performance leader then it needs something like the K20A2 or K20Z1 -or better.
|
|
Wizard
|
|
If CRX happens, it will likely be based off Fit/Jazz. I will be surprised to see if it didn’t. And that, in some ways, can be good news. First of all, we can expect the car to be light, no more than 2200 lb.
Next, if Honda comes out with a K18A for base trims of Civic (140 HP/125 lb.-ft), it would make for an excellent choice for a regular trim of CRX. With 5-speed manual, and 2200 lb. curb weight, this will be a high 6 s runner from zero to 60.
This would give a reason for a CRX Si-R, with the same engine tuned to 190 HP/130 lb.-ft. If sufficient traction were to be found, this would be a recipe for a mid 5 second run of 0-60.
|
Power Of Dreams
|
|
No, I'm asking for a CR-X which is designed for superb handling, the lightest weight possible and has a trademark high-revving VTEC engine.
If Honda designs the car in the veins of its legendary (forgive the pun) predecessors, then a highly-tuned K16 should be more than enough power.
TonyE wrote:
You're asking for a Fit SiR.
Power Of Dreams wrote:
Honda has to have a new sub-2 liter engine coming out for the next Civic, and since a 2.0 liter CRX would basically be an Integra, a new CR-X needs to be smaller, and have a higher-revving engine.
What I would like to see:
K16 DOHC i-VTEC with 8000 RPM redline and 140 horsepower for standard models, and a 160 horsepower version for the Si.
I know it doesn't sound like much, but it should keep the weight of the car down and give it the high-revving characteristics Honda fans love.
|
|
|
Power Of Dreams
|
|
Just remembered of hearing some rumors that the next Fit and the Civic will share a basic platform, which sounds quite viable.
If true, the Integra would probably move up to the TSX platform as not to crowd the CR-X.
I could imagine Honda releasing an all-new Civic late 2005, and a new Fit/CR-X around 2006.
Wizard wrote:
If CRX happens, it will likely be based off Fit/Jazz. I will be surprised to see if it didn’t. And that, in some ways, can be good news. First of all, we can expect the car to be light, no more than 2200 lb.
Next, if Honda comes out with a K18A for base trims of Civic (140 HP/125 lb.-ft), it would make for an excellent choice for a regular trim of CRX. With 5-speed manual, and 2200 lb. curb weight, this will be a high 6 s runner from zero to 60.
This would give a reason for a CRX Si-R, with the same engine tuned to 190 HP/130 lb.-ft. If sufficient traction were to be found, this would be a recipe for a mid 5 second run of 0-60.
|
|
Mugen Power
|
|
Without backseats, insurance rates will be higher. That plus the fact that it's not as convenient might push Honda to include rear seats.
Disclaimer: I definitely wouldn't mind it being a 2-seater. Just showing the other side of the coin here.
|
franckv
|
|
Power Of Dreams wrote:
No, I'm asking for a CR-X which is designed for superb handling, the lightest weight possible and has a trademark high-revving VTEC engine.
If Honda designs the car in the veins of its legendary (forgive the pun) predecessors, then a highly-tuned K16 should be more than enough power.
|
Indeed, Honda has already proved that high output doesn't necessarily mean more cubic inches...
In the good old days of the CRX, it made do with a smaller engine, but it provided as many hp as the class leaders with engines 20% bigger. What would sound nice to me is a 1.8 litre with 200 hp, not that far from the previous generation ITR, and it would be more than enough to give a good spanking to the competition...
What's more, what I wouldn't want for the future CRX is driving assistance such as the ESP, and I even would question the presence of power steering... And no fancy gimmicks such as a trip computer or that kind of things. Keep it simple, fine-tune the road-holding, save some weight, and it's a winner. But I guess Honda already knows all that! ;o)
|
Wizard
|
|
I doubt it. Fit/Jazz will be better served on a cheaper platform that they do use at the time (Global Economy Platform). And I hope Civic doesn't move to that platform either, as that will spell another round of Honda cheapening the platform by taking out double wishbones from the rear to a semi-independent torsion beam axle setup. Yes, Corolla uses it, so do VWs, but Civics seem to get more attention in that regard than the others.
And this has to be especially true if RSX has to continue to sit on the Global Compact platform.
I have my doubts on Fit/Jazz moving to a revised Global Compact platform. But if that happens, it will surprise me.
|
Mugen Power
|
|
|
No way, I'm not quite ready to think that the RSX/Integra would move up to share an TSX/Accord platform. That's just too big.
|
Pseudomaniac
|
|
Don't forget that there are 13 second Dodge Neon's for sale in the 19,000 range now. You can buy 14 second supercharged Saturn sportcoupes for under 22,000.
The WRX, Lancer Evo, Tiburon GT, Mazdaspeed 6, Focus SVT, Neon SRT4, Saturn Redline, and the Cavalier replacement is rumored to be offered in boosted trim too.
The CRX Si was near untouchable for the $$$ in it's day for performance, handling, and features. (quality is a given)
Don't forget they did the civic hatch and CRX in very similar configurations at the same time.
Honda has upped their peak HP on the RL to 300hp. The RSX is putting down 210 in US trim.
I would be disappointed to see less than a 200hp 2400lb car, with a good 7500+ redline, 6 speed tranny and an AWD option.
|
Mugen Power
|
|
|
You know how expensive that will be, even without AWD? I know we're all making wishlists here but if Honda is asking for a $19k MSRP on a new EP, all these things are gonna add up quickly.
|
TonyEX
|
|
No... no... nyet!
It's about FUN.
Putting the K20A3 into a lightweight CRX will give you a fast but slow revving CRX... You could call the K20A3 the "eta" motor for Honda. Yes, the car will be fast, but it just won't be great fun. And a CRX must be FUN.
OTOH, putting a high revvying buzzbomb on a lightweight car will give you something really special. Make it shriek like a B18C and you got yoursefl one hell of a car.
Think... which would you rather have on a small, lightweight sport coupe? A 160bhp K20A3 or a 8100rpm, 160bhp, MT6 K16A2?
I'd take the buzzbomb every day.
But then, I do like my K20A3 too... it's the perfect commuter car. Fun enough but very comfortable.
gilbert wrote:
Wrong. If you put the K20A3 into a lightweight car, it will do just fine. It's all about power-to-weight.
Gilbert
TonyE wrote:
Hell no! If it's gonna be the performance leader then it needs something like the K20A2 or K20Z1 -or better.
|
|
|
gilbert
|
|
Huh? The speed you can rev the engine is based on the load placed on it and how much power you have. If you put that engine on a little bitty car, it will rev faster than the typical Si. If you have less inertia (mass) to overcome it will spin up faster given the same power. Try it some time. Rev the engine without being in gear and see how much faster it revs up than when you are in gear.
Gilbert
TonyE wrote:
No... no... nyet!
It's about FUN.
Putting the K20A3 into a lightweight CRX will give you a fast but slow revving CRX... You could call the K20A3 the "eta" motor for Honda. Yes, the car will be fast, but it just won't be great fun. And a CRX must be FUN.
OTOH, putting a high revvying buzzbomb on a lightweight car will give you something really special. Make it shriek like a B18C and you got yoursefl one hell of a car.
Think... which would you rather have on a small, lightweight sport coupe? A 160bhp K20A3 or a 8100rpm, 160bhp, MT6 K16A2?
I'd take the buzzbomb every day.
But then, I do like my K20A3 too... it's the perfect commuter car. Fun enough but very comfortable.
|
|
thunderbird1100
|
|
Mugen Power wrote:
You know how expensive that will be, even without AWD? I know we're all making wishlists here but if Honda is asking for a $19k MSRP on a new EP, all these things are gonna add up quickly.
|
I agree, people are putting this out of proportion. With the options you all are wanting it's going to put the pricepoint out of the public's reach. People aren't going to buy a $23,000 CRX. Like I said, they need to keep the pricepoint between $17,000-$18,000 MSRP, NO MORE. That's why it's only logical they use the K20a3 (maybe they could throw some hotter cams in and raise the redline to 7400-7500 and 170hp). 2,200lbs Just doesn't seem plausible for a vehicle of today. I think the actual full weight of it will be right at 2,400lbs (that's still 300lbs less than a K20a3 RSX...which seems would be about right...put a base RSX on a 300lb diet and then you get a new CRX). I think 2,200lbs is asking too much.
|
Mugen Power
|
|
|
I totally agree. That weight number that's been thrown around isn't too likely, what with increasing crash and NVH standards nowadays. The CRX was a relatively inexpensive but hugely entertaining and capable car. But reducing so much weight while maintaining a reasonable amount of safety and comfort for today's standards would require extensive use of expensive materials, like carbon fiber and titanium or aluminum. I don't quite see that happening.
|
uhhhh
|
|
|
take a look @ the Acura RSX and the old CRX , both are 2 door and , both are fun!, ok i know for that remark im going to be massively flamed but think about it. what truely defines a crx? how light does it have to be?
|
constructicon
|
|
Let's not forget - it's gotta be twin turbo, since everyone else is boosting their engines.
No thanks. I'll take a reliable, fun to drive piece of machinery that won't lose half it's value the second it rolls off the dealer lot. Remember, your SRT4 might be fast now, but it's not going to do you much good when it's sitting in your driveway with a blown engine.
For a new CRX, I say about 140 - 170 hp from a DOHC engine, about 2400lb and discs all around will make this thing spiffy. Want more features, buy yourself an Accord or Civic.
|
Pseudomaniac
|
|
Current 2005 Civic LX 2dr 5spd stripped
____________________________________
2500lb Curb Weight
115HP 1.7L SOHC VTEC Engine
5speed Manual
$15,000 Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current 2005 Civic Si 5spd Base
____________________________________
2782LB Curb Weight (how the hell?)
160HP 2.0L DOHC VTEC Engine
$19,200 Price
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential CRX Base Model
2500LB Curb Weight
160HP K20A motor (same as Civic Si)
5spd manual (from the Civic Si)
2 Seater - No backseat (just like the original EF and EG Del Sol)
$20,500 Price
Potential CRX Si Model
2400LB Curb Weight (ditch the noise deadening crap)
(carbon fiber or fiberglass hood and doghouse)
K20C (from the RSX Type S) at 200HP
6spd Manual (from the RSX Type S)
$22,500 Price (still $1000 less than the RSX Type S base)
IF MY MATH IS RIGHT - with a 200lb driver, low fuel, and average conditions, - this should be able to run something in the neighborhood of 14.0 at 97mph
I would be hard pressed now to spend $22,500 on a CRX, but 5 years ago I bought a 160hp Civic Si (back when they weren't a joke) for $19,000 - so.... I think theres a market
They already have a powertrain, the could work off the Civic Si platform for the frame and body...... I think this is do-able.
|
TonyEX
|
|
Gilbert.... don't you think I understand that?
What I'm talking about here is not WHAT the results are, but HOW they are achieved.
Let's say you were to design a sport car and you had at your disposal two powertrains, both would do the same but one of them was more fun to drive. Which would you choose?
By the same token, imagine you had the same choice on a family sedan.
For the sport car, you'd choose the fun one.
For the family sedan, you'd choose the more sedate one.
If you think a CRX with an EP3 powertrain would sell... well, just look at how sales of our beloved EP3 are doing. We know it's a great little car, but the marketplace expectation was for a little ripper. Hell, my insurance company thinks it's a "fast and idiot" type of car...
IMHO, if the CRX were to come out with an efficient powertrain, it would be its death.
gilbert wrote:
Huh? The speed you can rev the engine is based on the load placed on it and how much power you have. If you put that engine on a little bitty car, it will rev faster than the typical Si. If you have less inertia (mass) to overcome it will spin up faster given the same power. Try it some time. Rev the engine without being in gear and see how much faster it revs up than when you are in gear.
Gilbert
TonyE wrote:
No... no... nyet!
It's about FUN.
Putting the K20A3 into a lightweight CRX will give you a fast but slow revving CRX... You could call the K20A3 the "eta" motor for Honda. Yes, the car will be fast, but it just won't be great fun. And a CRX must be FUN.
OTOH, putting a high revvying buzzbomb on a lightweight car will give you something really special. Make it shriek like a B18C and you got yoursefl one hell of a car.
Think... which would you rather have on a small, lightweight sport coupe? A 160bhp K20A3 or a 8100rpm, 160bhp, MT6 K16A2?
I'd take the buzzbomb every day.
But then, I do like my K20A3 too... it's the perfect commuter car. Fun enough but very comfortable.
|
|
|
gilbert
|
|
Sigh. I don't know why I try. ;-) The EP3 Si does not sell because of the package not because of the engine by itself. 160HP in the 2800lbs car is just not very fun. 160HP in a 2200lbs car would be bliss. Gear it correctly and the 6800RPM limit won't seem bad at all. I can guarantee you that they will not put the K20A2 into the CRX.
Gilbert
TonyE wrote:
Gilbert.... don't you think I understand that?
What I'm talking about here is not WHAT the results are, but HOW they are achieved.
Let's say you were to design a sport car and you had at your disposal two powertrains, both would do the same but one of them was more fun to drive. Which would you choose?
By the same token, imagine you had the same choice on a family sedan.
For the sport car, you'd choose the fun one.
For the family sedan, you'd choose the more sedate one.
If you think a CRX with an EP3 powertrain would sell... well, just look at how sales of our beloved EP3 are doing. We know it's a great little car, but the marketplace expectation was for a little ripper. Hell, my insurance company thinks it's a "fast and idiot" type of car...
IMHO, if the CRX were to come out with an efficient powertrain, it would be its death.
|
|
Power Of Dreams
|
|
Franck, I think we're at a consensus to what the next CR-X should be. Everyone's lamenting the dearth of pure driver's cars in the market today, and not everyone can afford an S2000.
This is Honda's golden opportunity to pay homage to their past of lightweight cars with stratospheric redlines and to show every else who created the sport compact market.
franckv wrote:
Power Of Dreams wrote:
No, I'm asking for a CR-X which is designed for superb handling, the lightest weight possible and has a trademark high-revving VTEC engine.
If Honda designs the car in the veins of its legendary (forgive the pun) predecessors, then a highly-tuned K16 should be more than enough power.
|
Indeed, Honda has already proved that high output doesn't necessarily mean more cubic inches...
In the good old days of the CRX, it made do with a smaller engine, but it provided as many hp as the class leaders with engines 20% bigger. What would sound nice to me is a 1.8 litre with 200 hp, not that far from the previous generation ITR, and it would be more than enough to give a good spanking to the competition...
What's more, what I wouldn't want for the future CRX is driving assistance such as the ESP, and I even would question the presence of power steering... And no fancy gimmicks such as a trip computer or that kind of things. Keep it simple, fine-tune the road-holding, save some weight, and it's a winner. But I guess Honda already knows all that! ;o)
|
|
roninsi02
|
|
if the civic sedan can be 2400 lbs im sure honda can engineer the new CRX to be somewhere between the weight of that and the Fit
(1800 lbs).
160 hp k20a3 will not be a sufficient drivetrain to put it at the head of the class. heck its gonna need at least a k20a2 or the k20z1.
2200 lbs 200 hp = awesome!
|
gilbert
|
|
What's the head of the class? The Focus SVT (16.2)? Neon SRT-4 (13.2)? Nissan Sentra SE-R Spec V (15.5)? The numbers in the parentheses are the power-to-weight ratios. If we assume that the CRX will be 2200lbs and will use the 160HP K20A3, it's power-to-weight is 13.8) That comes really close to the Neon SRT which uses a turbo. Heck, bump up the power on the K20A3 by 10HP and you drop the power-to-weight ratio to 12.9. It doesn't take much to become the top of the class.
I'll say it again. It's the whole package (power-to-weight, handling, etc.). If Honda can make the CRX the top of the class with a more efficient engine like the K20A3, that's great. You don't need gobs of power to make the car competitive if the weight is low enough.
The only reason I think Honda won't put in the K20A2 or Z1 is that it would potentially draw buyers from the RSX-S. So unless they do something major in the next generation RSX-S (bring us a Type-R or bump up the power significantly, 230-240HP or more), I don't see Honda making the CRX insanely fast by giving it a power-to-weight ratio of 11 or less.
Gilbert
roninsi02 wrote:
if the civic sedan can be 2400 lbs im sure honda can engineer the new CRX to be somewhere between the weight of that and the Fit
(1800 lbs).
160 hp k20a3 will not be a sufficient drivetrain to put it at the head of the class. heck its gonna need at least a k20a2 or the k20z1.
2200 lbs 200 hp = awesome!
|
|
OHV
|
|
think its possible to cram the 3.0L V6 in it?
:-)
sure it wouldnt handle worth a darn, but itd be hella fast.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 3 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
