and still i couldnt get an explanation why hondas engines are better than mitsu when the only one they have is the SI wich is w/o FI and makes 197bhp. and no TQ that wins over mitsus n/a engines .nothing else. or the s2000 wich makes 237 hp and 162 TQ and starts at $50600

 

Go and drive a performance Honda or watch racing and you'll see why Honda is superior to Mitsubishi in many aspects of engine design. Mitsubishi makes some great motors (the 4G63 is legendary) but it just doesn't know how to make good NA motors like Honda can. Brute power isn't necessarily an indication of engine building ability, old school muscle cars could make 300-400 hp with ease but it wasn't through technology or clever application of old ideas but rather shear size. Saying that since Mitsubishi made the evo it is superior to all companies is like saying since Ford made the GT40 it is the best manufacturer ever, it's relying on a single car to form the backbone of an entire company.

 

ok man i never said that honda isnt a racing company i said they are not popular in rally or whatever and i never said they didnt make performance cars i said compared to X and i only said all those stuff because of the by far superior engine. wich i dont see

 

ok wich good N/A motor are you refering to man. i can only see the SI. what else?everything else is below mitsu

 

Why did you say they aren't popular in rally? How is that applicable unless you are somehow trying to link rallying (racing) to the ability of a manufacturer to perform? If this is the case, by saying that Honda is not in rallying you are implying that they are not as performance minded as Mitsubishi, Subaru, Ford, Citroen, Peugeot, etc. which is ridiculous. Sure they don't make rally cars but they make F1 engines. Ask the average person which they respect more, rally racing or F1 and I bet most will say F1 for the simple fact it's faster and more popular. Remove the turbo from the X and see how it fairs against Honda. You're trying to compare apples to oranges which doesn't work. Mitsubishi and Subaru have one way of making performance cars (namely AWD and turboed) while Honda has another (FWD or RWD and NA).

 

as far as i remember the last gen base civics had 115hp na and the lancer had 120na

 

Past and present. You have the K series (which blows any Mitsubishi NA motor out of the water), the F series (S2000) and of course the B series.

 

And the lancer was just as fast/slow. I had a lancer and I would never say it was superior to the Civic.

 

i like rally because its closer to everyday driving and f1 isnt. with the f1 your going on a very clean flat track or whatever on the rally your out in the nature driving like crazy and still didnt answer my question about the n/a motor the only one i can see is the SI s motor . all others lose

 

I agree with amby on this one. Honda's don't get the respect they deserve, or once used to get... and only because they have been bastardized by every 16-19 year old that has seen and kind of movies. Unfortunately, I feel that (at least for our generation) Honda's will have a hard time moving past the reputation that spread world wide when The Fast And The Furious came out... but, watch out for the new one... BMW is going to take the next hit from the movie.

Honda engines are superior to Mitsubishi engines because they are build with far more attention to detail. They rev to the moon and beyond because they actually take the time to balance the engines properly. They make so much power because Honda took the time to figure out the proper balance of bore, stroke, and rpm. The K series engines are very strong, especially for their N/A displacement. As far as engineering goes, Honda spends more time where it counts... rather than, how many cup holders can we fit in this car, or who can we partner with to put a stereo in here that still sucks, but costs more.

Engine wise, Honda is about 10 years advanced from Mitsubishi. They had variable valve timing (that worked damn good) in the mid 90's. It took Mitsubishi until 2003 to even figure the technology out, much less put it to use. The only reason anybody (performance minded) really gives a rats *** about Mitsubishi is because of the 4g63 that has been out since the 80's and seen little change. And even then, N/A the 4g63 isn't all that impressive.

Not to knock Mitsubishi, but lets be honest here.

 

this is what i want you to do. compare new hondas vs new mitsus and their power. basic civic 140hp vs 152 lancer n/a wich is better?

 

Lol rallying is nothing like everyday driving, you're crazy if you think that. Have you actually been around a rally car or worked on a rally car? They're no more street cars than a F1 or NASCAR car. Again, how is this relevant anyways if you aren't trying to imply that a presence in rally is superior to a presence in another (or several other) forms of motorsports? Do you think F1 cars are easier to develop than a rally car? The S2000 motor (F series) competes as do several cars with motors from the B-series. Also, you don't drive an evo so I don't see why are you arguing that the evo is the end all car since Honda still makes cars that beats yours hands down.

 

I think Mitsubishi had MIVEC a bit earlier than 2003 but not in the North American market.

 

Again, you're just comparing raw numbers. That's like saying a 200 lb person is a better fighter than a 150 lb person, it doesn't take into account other factors.

 

The k20 in the SI actually would have made 200 on the nose, if tested the same way that Mitsubishi test... the only reason the SI bumped down to 197 is because they actually tested with a water pump on the engine, which has been optional in automotive engine testing until very recent.

The k20 isn't the only good engine Honda makes. The k24 has a good bit of torque, and is used in some SUV's. The k24 is really just the k20 with a different bore and stroke, everything else bolts up the same. They are the same size, and just about the same weight.

How is rally more like normal driving? You really can't compare any motorsport to normal driving... unless you are an idiot that like to endanger everybody on the road by driving like you're on a race track.

F1 is on a prepared surface, Nascar is too, so is SCCA stuff... guess what... Rally courses are too. They don't just say, lets take this public road exactly as is and race on it... they still shut down traffic, add markers, and other safety precautions.

I don't recall ever seeing a perfectly clean and smooth track in any motorsport. Drag racing is about cleanest track surface you will see, unless you count an indoor go kart track at the nearest family fun center.