Talk:Honda D engine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Automobiles  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

INCORRECT, CAN SOMEONE EDIT THIS[edit]

The D16Y4 needs to be added to this page, it was in the Australian 96-00 civic gli sedan and hatch, and I believe it is basically the d16y7 with the d16y8 air intake and gearbox.


Hi do D15B1 d15B2 engines have 4 valves per cylinder but a SINGLE over head camshaft? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by

Yes, 4 valves per cylinder, SOHC. ====Burnout420 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.131.7 (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Alot of eco honda engines had sohc and 4 valves per cyl thats 2 valves riding 1 lobe instead of 1 cam for intake 1 for exaust. you have sohc with one lobe opens 2 intake and 1 lobe opens two exaust. vtec alows open forther at higher rpm to get the higher rpms and more horsepower but genrates same torque only higher up. this is becoming more popular on imports not just hondas.

thats 2 valves riding 1 lobe instead of 1 cam for intake 1 for exaust. you have sohc with one lobe opens 2 intake and 1 lobe opens two exaust. This is not correct. Each valve has his own lobe (and rocker). So, the single camshaft has 16 lobes, 1 for each valve. Fritz78 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Writing style[edit]

The term 'Dizzy' as used here often is an abbreviation of distributor cap. I believe the author is trying to show familiarity with the subject matter whereas it should be a neutral technical/engineering description readable by anyone. 87.198.169.92 (talk) 15:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

D13 manual/auto choke[edit]

D13B2 has automatic choke. It was used in the 5th gen Honda Civic (EG3), no 5th gen civic has manual choke. The D13B1 is more likely to have manual choke, since it was used in 4th gen civics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.150.36.186 (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Major clean-up[edit]

The data here is a mess and cannot be trusted; have a look at the history, where everybody and his brother have changed the figures without any explanation, oftentimes sloppily: erasing numbers, typographical errors, etc., AND such errors did not get corrected promptly, which shows how little monitoring this article has.
Note that the article has been tagged as in need of referenced sources, since 2009: that's way too long for people to simply ignore and keep inputting just anything they feel like, at a given moment.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 01:04, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

When i say "everybody and his brother", that means many hit-and-run edits, from anonymous IPs.

Source your data, it's a requirement here. And no, someone else is not gonna do it for you. Source from honda.com, from your Hayne's repair manual, from somewhere published (forum postings are not acceptable) --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:20, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Or, wikilink your stuff to articles where the data that you add is already sourced. Example: engine XYZ123 characteristics may be described (and properly sourced) at the Honda whatever-car-model article. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:24, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Please go back, now the article lacks a lot of information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.145.84.66 (talk) 12:10 UTC, 10 March 2011
The old info can be found in the article history: click on the "View history" index tab at the top right of the page, and dig away. It just shouldn't be in the current version of the article, since there's no telling whether it is accurate or not. --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there exists one possibility to keep everyone happy, and that is to put back the old data, BUT tagging every single table cell with the template {{Fact}}. That's every single piece of unsourced data, just like the RPM triggers for engine D15Z7. I suppose that i could have done this to start with, but i got irritated while digging through the article history, trying to figure out what's true and what's bogus, so i chopped off and away, to a clean start. Failure to appropriately tag should result in a revert. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with the method of putting the old data back and tagging everything. Please do so. I can't get you to revert to the non-table style can I? What was especially usefull in the old style was the index with all the differenet engines there to click on.
On another note: I have a lot of original Honda Workshop Manuals which contain a lot of information, how can I use those as a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.64.160 (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. Yes, by now i've rather invested in this table format, and we like those, here at Wikipedia. The old table of contents was a bit long, wasn't it? And how difficult exactly is it to skip to the right displacement (litre) section, then scroll down to the engine number you are looking for, when they are alphabetically ordered?
  2. Uhm, follow all the links about citing sources that are in this talk page and in the banner at the top of the article? Those links lead to everything you need to know. Also, i've put in A LOT of sources for everyone to use as examples; that should inspire you on how it's done.
  3. Uhm, if you have the sources that are needed, then i'd rather wait for you to quote them, than putting all the old data back and tagging it. Besides, y'all have had the warning since October 2009 about referencing your data, so no i don't wanna do it, y'all do it. I'm fed up with this whining.
  4. Please sign your postings. --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
If you are fed up with the whining, you should have left this page alone and put your energy into something you actually know something about. 77.249.64.160 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a rather large list of d series engines but its not complete. You can pull a lot of specs from here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid raptor (talkcontribs) 05:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Uhm that's a mirror (a copy) of the previous version here; it says so at the bottom --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I decided to go to the japanese d series page and i found that they have a lot of info there too but when it comes to references they are worse off then us. ja:ホンダ・D型エンジン#cite_note-0
The only source they have given is the japanese honda site and i cant tell if it has the info we need or not cuz google translate cant translate half the text there. I think we will either need a honda technician or a japanese speaker to verify our data--Sid raptor (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Google Translate can do a better job if you ask it for small chunks of text at a time, instead of a whole page, or even whole sections. You may want to try that for better luck, if you haven't already. (i didn't, i'm a bit too busy otherwise) --Jerome Potts (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

New table format[edit]

Now, i am aware that adding to a table (the new format of this article) is not easy, and may intimidate some. One solution is to offer the data in this discussion page; another is to add it in plain text below the table, and leave it to someone else to incorporate it to the table. Perhaps we can have a discussion about this here: if enough contributors call for a return to the original format, we may just do that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Dear Jerome Charles Potts
The reason why I undid your edits, is because you have deleted a lot of valuable information on Honda Engines that definately do exist.
Besides that, putting everything in tables makes it different from all the other Honda engine pages which is NOT good and it does not contribute to the whole.
If you put the information you found in the same order as the old page (without tables), I'll be happy to help you find more sources and make the page complete! 77.249.64.160 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
PS: sorry if my English is not OK, i'm from the Netherlands
On another note, you have deleted all International motor types. Please reply if you are willing to change the page again to the non-table version. Else I will try to revert it to the original layout. 77.249.64.160 (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
  1. Again, read Wikipedia:Verifiability. And you put a condition on providing sources? That's hardly acceptable.
  2. You're from the Netherlands, you say ? Perhaps you should create the Honda D engine page at nl.wikipedia, with the old unsourced data of here, and deal with the Dutch Wikipedia crowd there.
  3. Regarding tables, i am now noticing that the German article uses tables, and the French one too. Besides, as already stated above, i'm interested in the opinion of serious contributors. --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I am not referring to other wikipedia pages from other languages and it's not your job to send me away from this page. Who made you in charge of this page?
This was the best page for information on the D serie engine and you screwed it all up, especially with the layout. It's totally different now from the other popular engines like the B-series.
I offered you my help, but since you don't consider me "a serious contributor" .... 77.249.64.160 (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for nothing: you're not helping at all. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Honda civic manuals found here[edit]

Please help me referance information found in manuals there. Most of the d series engines are covered. I still need information on jdm engines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid raptor (talkcontribs) 05:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I started putting data in the tables, from some PDF manuals i found at hondatech.info, per PushKeeN's suggestion, to show how it's done. The PDF manuals you point to look like they are the same. If you don't understand the wiki markup for formatting it nicely (tables, refs, templates), then put it in free-format text, and we'll format it for you. I don't want to read all those manuals for you, y'all are the ones who need to do that, as i already wrote above.
Also, when you post a comment in here, please sign it by clicking on the pencil above the edit box. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Allright then i will start digging through these manuals and see what i can find. any help will be greatly appreciated--Sid raptor (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I just flipped through the honda civic 1996-2000 service manual found at the above link. It has details for most d16 motors sold in north america. I am going to use information there to fill the d16 table. I am however having trouble sourcing jdm manuals. --Sid raptor (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I just added the info that i found in that manual, to the D16 table. Didn't find all that much, could'nt locate power or torque data. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

V-TEC trigger RPM[edit]

i would like to suggest that you also add vtec trigger rpms in the table. Most engines will have only one but engines like the D15b 3 stage and the d15z7 3 stage will have 2 vetc triggers. The zones for the z7 are 5300rpm and 7000rpm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sid raptor (talkcontribs) 05:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

So, would one column named "VTEC triggers" do?
Regarding these two RPM figures, are they documented (published) anywhere, that we can quote? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:31, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes one column would be great. Most engines will have only one vtec trigger. As for the rpm figures for the d15z7. I own one engine so i can confirm that. However i doubt that will be good enough so ill try to find some sources somewhere. Trouble is jdm manuals are very hard to come by--Sid raptor (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)--Sid raptor (talk) 05:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that column in all tables, or just the 1.5 l? --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I think having a column for all tables will be better. If the engine is a non vtec then we can just fill n/a or something like that. Most of the engines came with a vtec version so it will be better to have a universal column. Thanks a lot! --Sid raptor (talk) 05:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, can do. But i just looked at the tables to see where i should add it, and i figured just after the Valvetrain column, since that seems related. But then i thought, why don't we add the info in the Valvetrain column, when it applies? Is that not good enough? Keep in mind that several columns will be added with time, then the table becomes too wide to be read easily, so i like to be conservative. But hey, you're the doctor on this one. --Jerome Potts (talk) 06:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I just added your figures (but tagged as unreferenced) in the valvetrain column for the moment; let us know if you still want a separate column. --Jerome Potts (talk) 08:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Thats perfect. Vtec is part of the valvetrain so that works out just fine :-) I am looking to see if i can dig up more manuals for verifying more data. --Sid raptor (talk) 11:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for the feedback. --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Allriggghttt...it seems that i may be wrong about the rpm figures I found this site that claims that both d15b 3stage and d15z7 are infact the same engine and the vtec range is actually variable between 3krpm to 5k rpm for stage 1 depending on the load conditions. Trouble is i havnt been able to find any other verification except this one site but now that the plot is growing thicker i think its best i do more research on this. As i said before my prefious figures were from my personal test of the vtec but this data may not actually be true so it is best we remove the vtec switchover figures from d15b 2stage and d15z7 until i find a confirmationn of the values. http://www.causeforalarm.thecarthing.com/version6/version6.EG/3-stage_VTEC/index.html --sid_raptor 196.22.48.58 (talk) 12:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
It's nice of you to keep searching, and to admit that your own data may be incorrect. I think that we should leave your triggers figures in, tagged as debatable, as an invitation to other contributors to conduct further research and help out with the missing data. I'm about to add the home page of that web site you mention, in the external links section, for the same purpose (because that author too is providing his own stuff, unverified by a third party, so i don't think that we can use that as a reliable source). --Jerome Potts (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Tats the problem im having....i cat seem to find any reliable info on JDM engines. (And that is probably because itll be in japanese and not in english.) Still..ill keep looking and if i come across anything itll be put here--Sid raptor (talk) 09:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, incidentally, what're those JDM engines you keep talking about? The article itself doesn't say anything about them, so that's obviously missing information. --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Never mind, i found it (via the French article): Japanese domestic market. So, i linked the two occurrences in the D16 table. --Jerome Potts (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Displacement, bore and stroke[edit]

Uhm, at the risk of causing yet another storm:
Are the displacement and bore & stroke figures important? I mean, take the D15B: the 1493 cc was to be expected for a 1.5 litre (for the non-metric folks, one litre = 1000 cc), the actual cc is most always slightly below the rounded litre figure (if we didn't round, it'd say 1.493 l). And so on for the 1.3, the 1.4, 1.6 and 1.7.
Then, the bore-x-stroke: who needs that? Will anyone who's rebuilding his engine, honing or reaming his cylinder sleeves, come here to get his needed specs? It's not like we're compiling the machining tolerances for that kind of exercise, right? Besides, which one is the bore and which the stroke? The first number the bore, always? Or, the longer of the two, the stroke? Always?
I dunno, this seems overkill (to my limited knowledge). I'm thinking that x.y litres, so much power, so much torque, any particular technology to get there, such as VTEC, timing chain or belt, its carburation, etc., is sufficient for the purpose of this encyclopedia. What say you? --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The importance of bore and stroke depends on your situation. For example the d15b 3 stage and the d15z7 are identical engines but have different compression ratios achieved by using slightly different strokes (but dont quote me on this..i would still like to verify this)
In any case this information is useful to anyone modifying their engine with after-market parts or combining parts from more than one engine.--Sid raptor (talk) 11:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I thought i saw an opportunity to save some space, but i guess not, then. But let me insist a bit: is the number of cc important too, when we already have its displacement in litres? --Jerome Potts (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Reading the Compression ratio article, i'm inclined to conclude that different compression ratios on a same engine block means that the cylinder heads are what's different from one engine to the other. Otherwise, to modify the stroke, you'd have to change the crankshaft, then i'm not sure we can still say that's the same engine. --Jerome Potts (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Stroke can be modified using different piston rods. But that would be going deeply into after market mods. I dont think that would be relevant in this article. As i said, the importance of this data depends on your situation. Bore and stroke information would be usefull to someone custom building an engine from different engine parts. while removing these details may disappoint some people i think you are right in omitting those details. In any case i think if anyone is seriously looking into building a custom engine he will have some knowledge of the parts he wishes to use and have larger resources available to him. Lets remove those details for the time being then look at the feedback we get regarding this. the data will still be available in the page history and anyone can access it if they really want to. --Sid raptor (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
OK, i'll simply remove the redundant displacement cc number, and leave the boreXstroke in, to try to stay as complete as possible. Thanks for the input. --Jerome Potts (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree - exact displacement are often of interest to many of us, and so are bore and strokes. The extra space occupied is minimal to say the least.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere[edit]

Hmm while searching the web for refs for this article, i stumbled upon this wikicars.org
It seems to me that the mechanically-inclined enthusiasts need their own wiki, if i consider the number of forums out there; apparently y'all need some central repositories of knowledge and documentation on the cars.
Perhaps y'all could take all that data which i removed and go put it at wikicars, because it looks like they are not so demanding on sourcing like we are here.

  • Most of the articles there seem consumer-oriented, not so much mechanic-oriented, but i did find this, which looks like a copy of our horsepower page. That's not too cool, but it shows that there is a need for technical data there.
  • However, i am noticing there this discussion

'Looks to me like a wiki waiting to happen! Note that we don't have a page here on Wikicars, yet it has existed since 2006. That shows that it hasn't grown big enough for us to talk about it. That can change, if enough people go update it. However, if it does grow to become important, we here at Wikipedia will not use it as a reliable source for refs in our articles: we don't source from wikis.
Trying a search for it in here returns this, where we can see that we point to it in some "external links" sections, and, oops, in one "references" section (that one needs to go) --Jerome Potts (talk) 09:46, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind you, i haven't looked into what becomes of one's contribution once submitted there: who ends up owning it, and how. Over here, your contributions fall under the Creative Commons license. --Jerome Potts (talk) 10:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds good! ill check it out thanks!Sid raptor (talk) 21:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
OK so Wikicars is owned by Internet Brands (see also Talk:Internet Brands). And they seem to get spammed a lot: see http://wikicars.org/en/Special:Recentchanges
Wikia would also be a serious place to consider. Personally, i kinda get lost in there. I do see an empty Honda wiki --Jerome Potts (talk) 19:21, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Mohsinjillani, 22 March 2011[edit]

{{edit semi-protected}}

I Wish to add some data of my car into this wonderful article to tell about my car and its engine. This is the details of my car and then the engine specifications follow as well.

My Car (Honda City 2002 1.3 'EXi-S' Model, Karachi, Pakistan) - This model was introduced in the year 2000 till the year 2003 in Pakistan.

My Engine Bay and Engine Number is D13B4 that is 1343cc (displacement) as per the instruction booklet, and has the Bore and Stroke of 75.0mm x 76.0mm and Compression Ratio of 9.0:1. Horsepower = 95HP@6500Rpm and Torque = 120Nm@4500Rpm. Engine is a Inline-4 (I4) SOHC (Single Overhead Cam with PGM-Fi/EFi with MPFi) and has 16 Valves (Hyper 16 Valve) with 4 valves per cylinder.


In short please update the "D13B4" Engine data area with the specifications I have provided.


Cars that use this engine are the 1998-2003 Honda City EXi/EXiS/DX/EX. (Pakistan/Asia)

Bore and Stroke = 75.0mm x 76.0mm

Displacement = 1343cc

Compression Ratio = 9.0:1

Power = 95HP @ 6500 RPM

Torque = 120NM @ 4500 RPM

Valvetrain = 16 Valve SOHC (Hyper 16 Valve) with 4 Valves per Cylinder

Fuel Control = PGM Multi-point Fuel Injection

Other Specs = (I4) Inline 4 Type Engine, Non-Vtec

Mohsinjillani (talk) 00:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. If you'll note, in the tables there are columns for the sources. If you can provide one I'll be happy to make the edit for you. — Bility (talk) 01:48, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there Mohsinjillani,
please provide all the information of the instruction booklet that you mention: title, publisher, year of publication, publication reference number, etc., and tell us exactly which of the information that you list, it offers. If you have any other literature about that engine, please let us know. Thank you. --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


(Dear Bility and Jerome Charles Potts/Jereme Potts)

The information booklet (guide/manual) has the following details:

Title : Honda City Owners Manual

Publisher : Honda [Honda Atlas Cars (Pakistan) Ltd. 43Km Multan Road,Manga Mandi,Lahore. (Pakistan)

Web Page = http://www.honda.com.pk (This does not have the instruction manual/guide/booklet but is our local country website)

Year of Publication : Late 1999(June) to Early 2003(January)

Reference Number : N/A (There is none on the booklet/guide/manual)

All the information is from the Original Owners Booklet and the Power and Torque come from the Dealership(exact) as well as the Manual(estimated value)

I do not have a online copy as any reference as I do not have any e-book or online scanned document(No scanner). The original physical booklet is in my car and is of 175 pages. If I had any link or reference web page I would love to submit it but in our country the dealership does not allow online manuals/guides/booklets on their web page or ours. :S — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsinjillani (talkcontribs) 22:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

(This is a reminder that I have answered all the above questions and am awaiting a response, sorry for the inconvenience.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsinjillani (talkcontribs) 21:24, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Still no response ? Mohsinjillani (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks as if you yourself have all the information necessary to add this information. I cannot add the data, since I do not have access to the data in question. I also do wish that you could provide a photo or a scan of the relevant pages.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Who screwed up this page?[edit]

This page used to be in list form and was almost completely comprehensive. Who put it into a table and removed a whole lot of info?

Just to name a few; D16Y1 and D16y4 have been removed, as well as the info on country of use! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.40.29 (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It was Jerome Potts, who took control over this pages and removed a lot of information. I am also missing the D16Z5 and the D14A1, for example. I have tried to convince him to put the information back without tables, but he would not listen, as you can read above. 77.249.64.160 (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

zc engine[edit]

The info on the zc sohc and dohc engines is missing now, the zc was a member of the d series family of engines. also I preferred the old version of this page, but if the current version were cleaned up and completed with ACCURATE info, It would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.70.58 (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

d15b[edit]

there was another version of the d15b, it was a nonvtec jdm dual carb version of the d15b2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.175.70.58 (talk) 02:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I note that after recent edits, all citations are now removed. Please, add them back. Otherwise, I would have no choice but to revert your edits. On another note, I found it strange that D16B8D16B5 is said to produce 185hp of power and 160ft·lbf of torque. Please provide a reliable source. Thank you. ---North wiki (talk) 07:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of bunk here. I notice that most troubles seem to be a result of this edit, but I am currently not able to repair this in a proper fashion. Nonetheless, please refrain from undoing further, possibly useful, edits until I or someone else can get around to incorporate whatever has been useful in recent edits. Additionally, why is this page so plagued by anonymous and often confused editors?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:33, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
Mr.choppers, This edit was done by me to revert the article to it's former state without tables, just like all the other Honda engine pages on here. You can read the discussion about tables with Jerome Potts above. He removed a lot of valuable information. Now that information is back and although it is not always backed up with a citation, most of it is correct and usefull. 77.248.73.52 (talk) 23:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi. But I'm still uncomfortable to let the info about D16B8D16B5 appear to be fact. I temporarily remove it till more info can be found. Thanks. ---North wiki (talk) 04:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Why are there so many volatile anonymous editors for this poor article?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I dont think the d16b5 ever produced over 180 hp........that sounds more like the b16 engine which has nothing to do with the d16 --196.22.48.58 (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, whoever wrote that probably got confused with the b16. It says "used in civic GX"... GX is the CNG or compressed natural gas variant! It is a known fact that a certain engine reduces its power output when transformed to natural gas. NO WAY it makes 185 hp. In this forum they post some info that looks better, but as it is a forum we can't cite it. http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2904339 . If posible check it in honda manuals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.47.67.169 (talk) 23:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

D14Z4 section is wrong[edit]

It seems this page has mixed info about D14Z4 and D14A4. Also, the D14A4 (old version of D14Z4) Is not listed, except in a note below (about intake difference in europe).

More info: http://www.hondagranturismo.it/articoli_tecnici/codici_motore.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.139.28 (talk) 20:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That may very well be. This page is plagued by anonymous, confused, and often thoughtless editors who will happily change things around based on unfounded notions of theirs. It may actually be one of the worst articles in Wikipedia. I don't know what to do to make it better since repeated requests to permanently block anon editors have been turned down. Sorry.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Don't exaggerate, Mr.choppers. And anon editors are never going to be permanently blocked. If you're interested in a better article, you'll have to play ball as well--though the other side, it is clear, will need to show a lot more cooperation. I've semi-protected the article yet again until Mr. Honda expert can come by and present some actual evidence beyond "huh I know Hondas you non-American pussies".

    Mr. Honda expert, ball's in your court. Note that I didn't block you, though you have given plenty of reason. If all you have is the kind of insult and patronizing commentary you've left in edit summaries and on my talk page, you will be blocked, and if disruption persists I will lock the article and any other targets permanently. Happy editing. Drmies (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2013 (UTC)