Many Japanese engines these days seem to have cam chains rather than belts which seems like progress to me.(I see that most of Audi's new engines now have cam chains!)
Can anyone tell me if the 2.0 i-VTEC engine fitted to the Honda CR-V is belt or chain?
Many thanks
HectorG
|
|
Same engine as in my 2003 Civic 2.0: chain definitely.
|
Thanks DD and Nortones.So it's one-all in this debate!
Can any other backroomers throw any light on the belt or chain conundrum.
HectorG
|
Hector
Done a bit of surfing and come up with this - not sure if this is the engine you have as the link refers to the Honda Stream.
Extract as follows -
10/26/00 - The New Generation "DOHC i-VTEC" is Announced
Honda Motor Company has announced a newly developed 2-liter engine, dubbed the "DOHC i-VTEC" to be mated to the upcoming new model, "Stream." The engine combines world-class fuel-efficiency with low emissions, light weight, and high-output.
This new engine utilizes Honda's "VTEC" technology, which adjusts valve timing and lift based on the engine's RPM, but adds "VTC" - Variable Timing Control - which continuously modulates the intake valve overlap depending on engine load. The two combined yield in a highly intelligent valve timing and lift mechanism.
In addition to such technology, improvements in the intake manifold, rearward exhaust system, lean-burn-optimized catalytic converter *1 help to create an engine that outputs 113kW (154PS) @ 6500rpm, *2 and provides ample mid-range torque. It also satisfies the year 2010 fuel efficiency standard of 14.2km/L *3 (roughly 35mpg), and receives the government standard of "LEV" *4. A highly durable lower block and a chain-driven cam were just some of the improvements in an effort to create a more compact engine - resulting in an engine that is 10% lighter *5 than conventional 2-liter engines.
The full link is - asia.vtec.net/article/ivtec/
|
Many thanks AD. I'm pretty sure the 2 litre i-VTEC engine is common to the CR-V,Civic type 'R'and Stream. It seems a little unlikely that Honda would build a 2 litre cambelt engine for one model and a chain engine for another.However, I remain open to be convinced otherwise.
HectorG
|
|
Hector, oh ye of little faith! Try:www.hondauk-media.co.uk/hondauk/car_index.html Look up CRV: use FIND, et voila, a reference to cam chain will be revealed.
|
Nortones, thanks for the link - interesting and very comprehensive specs on the Honda Media site.Conclusive proof that the 2 litre i-VTEC engine in its various applications has a chain-driven camshaft !
I didn't mean to doubt your word Nortones - its just that I had a seed of doubt - undoubtedly a small one.
Anyway it's a relief as I am taking delivery of a CR-V next Tuesday.
Thanks again to everyone for info supplied.
HectorG
|
HectorG - at least you can now relax that the Honda engine is a chain cam, - pity that Audi are still so slow to follow suit, as only their larger V6/V8 engines have recently gone over to chains.
Their big sellers are the 4 cylinder engines, which are still running wretched belts, - and they claim to be a prestige marque!!!!! I personally would`nt consider one until they fit chains across their entire range.
|
|
|
|
Hector: dinna worry. just that i wanted out from belts, as i have to pay for dopes to risk damaging the engine at my expense. Unlike old bike engines where I could cope! BTW, enjoy the smoothness and poke.
|
Nortones, I take it from your last comments that you are a fan of the i-VTEC engine.I am escaping from VW diesel ownership before the dreaded 60,000 mile cambelt change which is extortionate! With the CR-V I will pay the price for lower fuel economy but hopefully this will be made up for by reliability and particularly the smoothness you mention.
BTW, what mpg do you get in your 2 litre Civic? Do you have any thoughts on what I can expect to get in the CR-V.I have been told I will get anything from 20 to 37 mpg!
Presumably as the engine 'redlines' at 7000rpm it is tempting to make use of all those revs and subsequently pay the price in fuel consumption.
Anyway, it's going to be a very different experience to driving a diesel with the very narrow power band and all that gear-changing to keep 'it in the zone'.
|
|
Hi Hector. Yes, its a good smooth engine, and I get about 35mpg. I make it a regular habit once well warmed up to take it to 6000 or thereabouts (quite entertaining in 2nd, but getting a bit hairy in 3rd as its 80). Engine limiter comes in at 6800rpm, soon after peak power, but mostly it is cruised fairly gently - Mways without tempting the cameras too much, i.e. not above 85. I fear you are going to be changing gear more frequently than you think, if you want to make progress. I have a steep hill nearby, twisting etc. Passat TDI would do it in 3rd, pull around the "hairpins", and still attain the same speed towards the top of the hill, but the Honda needs to be dropped into 2nd, or its necessary to be patient. Although the power band seems to be narrower in the TDI, I think it compensates for that by having higher gear ratios, and responds extremely well from low revs. They all have plusses and minuses I suppose. When there's a decent cam-chain Honda diesel in a Civic size car I may well be tempted by diesel again, unless the Mini diesel gets me first:)
|
I fear you are going to be changing gear more frequently than you think, if you want to make progress.
Hi Nortones. Having test driven the CR-V on 3 occasions I appreciate that there is considerably less torque in the Honda which will require more gear changing in some circumstances. However, I believe it will do 30 to 80 in 3rd which means it would be possible to leave it in this gear for, say, overtaking. This you couild never do in a diesel. Or would such a driving style 'cripple' the fuel economy?
Anyway, although we are part-exing the Golf (which SWMBO uses most of the time)for a CR-V the Honda is really a replacement for 'my' 14 year old Volvo 740 auto estate -talk about gutless.
I'm sure the Honda will be very much more lively than the Volvo!
BTW, I intended to buy a diesel CR-V but I understand that they will not be available until 2005 or 2006.A very large Honda dealership in the London area told me that Honda were experiencing difficulties configuring the i-CTDi engine for use in the CR-V chassis and they may well postpone the introduction of the diesel CR-V until the introduction of the new model.
With a 60,000 mile service (including cambelt change) due on the Golf and the prospect of the warranty expiring shortly I could not wait for the diesel.My last Golf (110 bbhp non PD) experienced complete engine failure before 40,000 miles. I understand the 130 bhp PD engine which I have is even more likely to fail. I was not prepared to take the risk.
The petrol CR-V will have to do until the diesel arrives. Anyway, very few people seem to have a bad word to say for it, except perhaps for fuel economy.No doubt this comment will produce a lot of anti-CRV remarks!
HectorG
|
Real world mpg figures for the CRV auto (sample of one) here, to avoid repetition:
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=19...3
About 26.5mpg overall in a nutshell.
|
I've just bought a 99T CR-V 2 litre petrol and booked it in for an overdue service at 66k miles. The dealer has quoted me about £400 to include a cambelt.
|
Regarding the economy, I may have some bad news....
We bought a 2 1/2 year old CR-V auto in November. It had only done 3,800 miles so we needed to run it in properly, which we have done, by giving it some good trips to the red line and it has definately got smoother and faster over the last few months.
However, the maximum economy we get, even on a run is about 25mpg, with around town reducing to 20-22 at best. Good car though and SWMBO will not not give it up without a fight.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
|
|
