[Erik F]

I just picked up my new 2010 Element...I noticed that the newest CRV has a revised motor putting out 180 hp. The 180hp comes 1000 rpm higher than the Elements rated peak hp...but I'm just curious as to why they would not put the new more powerful motor in the Element as well...I thought they were based on the same platform. Just wondering.

 

[Dom.five]

Adding Power to an econo utility box !

Now really, Does that make any sense at all?

Dom

 

[Shabbis]

Adding Power to a utility box !

Agreed... I don't miss the 280hp V6 my last vehicle had at all.

 

[paulj]

The Element and CRV shared the drive train - in 2003. Since then the CRV has had a major change, and the Element just minor ones. Also the CRV is assembled in Japan, the Element in the USA.

 

[steamloco76]

Be careful what you wish for.
According to the service manager at my local Honda dealer (also my Subaru dealer) the high output versions of the 2.4L K series engines in the CR-V and Accord are eating timing chains and tensioner components at a very early stage. There were a couple of 2009 CR-V's and a 2010 Accord in the the shop at that time- all needing timing component replacement. He said the pre-2009 versions of the engine rarely come in for any mechanical issues other than the V-Tech oil pressure switch.

 

[Erik F]

I just didn't know if there was a reason behind it good or bad...one reason I felt comfortable with the 2010 E was because it has been the same for so many years...so in my mind most if not all of the bugs should be worked out. It also looks like our peak hp comes on at 1000 rpm lower than the new 180hp version of the 2.4l. It would seem this is better for any towing that may occur. As well as a lower compression ratio...which I would think would also be better for towing. Not that this is a towing machine...but that was part of my plan when I bought it, to do small amounts of light towing. Also the lower compression ratio would be more reliable in rare and not so rare cases of bad gas. But again...I just wondering what Honda's thinking might have been behind it...most likely its about production and nothing else...the have things set up for max cost effectiveness, so why change something that is working. OR they are waiting to up the HP for a new version...OR they don't want the Element to compete as well with the C-RV because they are getting ride of the E? Who know.

 

[scorsone]

the extra power in the CRV may be to help it compete with it's closest rival the Rav-4 which also has an available V-6. It is cheaper to build a car that only has one engine option so to split the difference Honda just upped the power. Totally my take on this and probably not what the real reason behind this is.:roll:

 

[redbox]

we just got a 2010 crv.... much nicer overall than the element. not better, just nicer.....
I hope the next gen element gets some of the improvements.
or stays exactly the same.

 

[RJG]

HP at high RPM is pretty meaningless in a vehicle like the Element. We need Torque at low RPM, which our 4 cyclinder engine doesn't have a lot of. So we need the engine to be designed and tuned for low RPM power, and economy, which it is.

Fuel economy at high MPH is killed by our aero drag, but if you keep the speeds reasonable, it does pretty good. I've managed as high as 28 MPG traveling mostly at 65-70 MPH, not bad for a 3500 lb brick. I believe I could get around 30 at a steady 55-60. So if Honda does any upgrades to the engine with better heads, valve controlling electronics, electric power steering, or tuning or something, I would rather have it tuned for 10-15 more FT LBS of TQ, than 10-15 more HP at 6000 RPM.

 

[Erik F]

I would agree and disagree with the point about the cr-v being "nicer"... I think it is supposed to be "nicer"... I think the Element is supposed to be more rugged...that is one reason I not be interested in the cr-v...I just don't think the interior would hold up to my kind of life style. I guess it just comes down to economics with the engine...it most likely is just easier to keep production as is. I suppose it will have to go into the unanswered questions about engines I have...such as why GM makes a 4.8l and 5.3l v-8. The 4.8 only make about 15 hp less than the 5.3l and gets worse mpg than the 5.3l as well. I can't see the cost in making either motor being very much different...so why not just make the superior product and get rid of the 4.8l...I know, people will say that is GM...but it would seem Honda is doing something similar right now with the two versions of the 2.4l. I don't really care...I would rather have a tried and true motor that makes slightly less peak power, when, most likely there is no real difference in drive-ability or acceleration. A 10 to 15 hp difference in a 3600lb vehicle will have a net seat of the pants difference of zero. They would need to reduce the stroke and increase the bore to really increase the torque numbers. HP is derived from torque...HP isn't a measurable number...it is derived from torque. I could be wrong about just about all of this...this is just my limited understanding about engines and power.

 

[Dom.five]

I agree with your assessment, save one detail. To increase torque, you need a longer stroke. As an example use the Beach Boys old song, She's real fine, My 409 !

Dom