|
Great job Basjoos, but why didn't you start with a civic VX instead of a CX ? It was the high mileage model. Feather light aluminum wheels. Wider ratio transmission with a higher final drive ratio (2000 rpm at 60 mph). Variable valve timing with a twist. In this engine only one intake valve opens below 2500 rpm. Since there is only one intake valve open more of the pressure drop between the atmosphere and the cylinder is across the valve rather than the throttle plate. This gives a more turbulent fuel air mixture which allows a leaner fuel/air charge, greater torque at low engine speed, and no predetonation . The use of a very sensitive oxygen sensor (unique to the VX) allows more precise control of the FA mixture making a very low idle possible. On a warm day mine idles at about 500 rpm. The practical effect of these engine tweaks is high torque at low RPM sort of like a diesel. As I'm sure you guys know, the great weakness of the Otto cycle (the spark igniton gasoline engine is an Otto cycle engine) are the large pumping losses at part load caused by sucking the FA charge past the throttle plate. The ability of this engine to deliver good torque at low RPM (and thus lower pumping losses) is the secret to the high fuel economy this car delivers. The CX and the VX share the same body, but the CX is listed at EPA 42/46 and the VX at 47/56. The VX also offers higher power since the engine has the same displacement, but four valves per cylinder (92 vs 70). I bought mine new in 1992, have put 208 thousand miles on it and still average 45 mpg to work and around town. When the car was new 52 or 53 mpg was not unusual on a long road trip. The fact Honda could do this with the technology of 15 years ago shows what a bunch of liars the auto companies are when they squeal about a 35 mpg average fuel economy rule.
|