When Honda Embarrassed GM by putting CVCC on an Impala and crushing EPA tests - sort of 

They actually built a Formula 1 race engine in the mid 60's and probably previously mentioned came out in the US in the Civic the 1200 ALL Aluminum engine.(The CVCC's had a cast Iron Block) a MUCH better engine.

Pin this at the top. Nobody is perfect!

Everyone makes a mistake. I don’t see how you don’t miss more. Your video was still really interesting and informative. I worked in the motorcycle division for over 20 years, HONDA history is sort of my “thing”.

@@ronstucker3550 their RA273 was designed by the legendary Shoichiro Irimajiri (lead designer and engineer on the iconic RC166 and HONDA CBX). Read the story of the RC166 for some fascinating insight into how far ahead HONDA was in engine technology. HONDA even built their own gearboxes, probably because they had extensive engineering experience from their motorcycle division. It needs to be noted that much of the FI technology originated from the motorcycle division. HONDA also built the RC116 which holds the record for the highest power output for a N/A engine. The RC116 produced 321.5 horsepower per liter. It was a 49.77cc twin that produced 16 horsepower at 21,500 RPM. This was in 1966! Even Modern MotoGP engines don’t even come close to this output per liter.

@@mlynch001 Knowing by working on these early Honda engines From the late 60's 600's to the 1800's mid 80's engines and all in between.( I owned 2 1st gen 1981 Accords ) both Sticks They were one of the best most reliable cars I ever owned. Also rode bikes built in Japan from my early teens to late 20's (Harley's after that) I knew all the history of their F-1 engine program back in the 60's. In late 80+ CVCC's with the 4 exaust ports instead if the (2 port early 80- 75 heads) became the most reliable. Only problem was those Damn carbs.

But doesn't high compression require high octane fuel which is more expensive?

@@MisterMikeTexas You are misunderstanding what quench is: on a wedge shaped combustion chamber the valves are typically on one side, and then there is a flat portion on the other side. Quench is the distance from the flat part of the cylinder head to the top of the piston. You can actually have a low compression ratio and a tight quench all at the same time. The compression ratio is determined by the size of the combustion chamber in relation to the volume of the cylinder. Quench has no bearing on needing premium or regular fuel. Quench does affect mixture motion - tight quench OHV engines burn cleaner and more powerfully. What many of the big 3 engineers did to reduce the compression ration was to change the piston pin height by .020" to .050". This was also the reason why many of these engines had horrible dieseling problems where they would keep running after the ignition was turned off - the extra quench distance often filled up with carbon deposits that would act as a secondary ignition source.

@@dangraff8467 Leaded gas was not necessary for high compression - its use was as a valve lubricant and sealer, Newer engines have hardened valve seats and other design features that live just fine even at high compression ratios without needing lead.

@@Thomas63r2 My 78 Fairmont would "diesel" at times. Worse than Clark Griswald's Family Truckster. Thanks for the info.

@@MisterMikeTexas It seems funny now, but I can still remember people shutting off their car, getting out and going into their house - and their car would still be sputtering and dieseling on! We blamed it on emissions equipment, which was only partially correct. It probably wasn't for another decade before many people/engineers understood excess quench distance as the cause.

If I remember right, they had a habit of blowing the head gasket between #2 and #3 due to the heat.

My dad was an engineer for GM in the late 60s and early 70s and quite the forward-thinking person. GM being stuck in the mud of their own choices is why he left after they refused to listen to what he said about the THM200 being a POS.

That and if Honda can get the EPA to enforce standards that only Honda can meet, then it gives them a very unfair advantage going forward.

@@tsherwoodrzeroand the vanity of leadership and inability to receive criticism kills companies’ success to this day

Glad to know that I m not the only one who had the rust issues on my cvcc but the mileage was truly impressive.

@@russellstewart5414 How many years did you get out of it before it rusted out?

Heh...for the last 35 years I've been driving one of the cars that pretty much started it all...1968 Toyota Corolla. It just keeps going.

@@yourhandlehere1 That’s nonsense. While the Japanese may produce significantly higher quality drivetrains due to a cultural proclivity for attention to detail, etc. They don’t have any magic dust that they can sprinkle into an engine or transmission to make it last forever.

@@markteague8889 Well gee Mark...I drove that 55 year old "nonsense" to the store for coffee this morning. Didn't need a tow truck or anything.

@@yourhandlehere1 How many miles are on the drive train? What service has been done to it over the course of its life? Did it spew magic “lasts forever” dust from the exhaust all the way there and back?!? 😁

@@markteague8889 Are you asking if cars and engines require maintenance? Yes, they do. Regular (frequent) oil changes, good filters, grease in all the fittings, fluids kept up. It's currently showing about 75,000 miles again...I've lost track of how many times it's rolled over. Really sorry if you decided to buy a Dodge or something.

I know only the basics (and my wife is a chemistry teacher and I have an engineering background); however that was far beyond the scope of this video! :)

I can't offer data but better emissions and more power is why today's cars engines operate at high temperatures. In the 60's a 180 degree thermostat was considered 'hot' while today many cars run 190 degree thermostats as standard.

I will give you a clue: the higher the NOx emissions, the higher the combustion temperatures.

The higher CO2 emissions meant more complete combustion, right? That's why I can't figure out why the MPG was less on the CVCC.

Carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are related to each other. One is an extremely deadly poisonous gas, the other is a life-giving gas. Carbon monoxide is one part carbon to one part oxygen it kills its victim by robbing its body of any Oxygen it can Rob so as to be carbon dioxide rather than monoxide. No amount of carbon monoxide is safe. It is the result of incomplete combustion of either carbohydrate fuel or hydrocarbon fuel. Carbon dioxide on the other hand is two parts oxygen to one part carbon regardless of whether it comes from respiration or combustion. It is a naturally occurring gas. All living things that are not a plant breathe in O2 and breathe out CO2. Plants do the reverse they absorb CO2 sequester the carbon and release the oxygen. Without this process no life could exist on this planet. Carbon monoxide is a deadly dangerous pollutant whereas carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas that gives life to the planet. It is not a deadly dangerous pollutant. It has no effect on the atmosphere or the climate.

at the same time: Honda retrofitted their tech on GMs car in very short order, there is no reason to assume that it could not have been improved over time.

@@uliwehner there is absolute proof. The Honda motor company itself ABANDONED cvcc technology eventually and that is more than enough proof that it wouldn't have ever worked right on a 350 Chevy engine. In 1979 when Honda increased the size of the engine a mere 9 cubic inches they had to use a catalytic converter to meet emissions.

@@crazyoilfieldmechanic3195 you mean millions of cars sold later? they even used carburetors back in the day. things evolve, especially in technology.

Yes, and Bosch mechanical (not electronic) fuel injection that worked off of an air flow plate and fuel pressure sensor.

And you want all that in a car that looks like the box it came in?

@@67marlinsBEST CAR EVER BUILT!!

@@mjg263 Nope, sorry, the 140 series was the best. 240, 740, was refinement of, the best car ever. (Relative to it’s time)

@mjg263 Unless it went further than our 1977 Ford LTD II at 532,000 miles on the original engine, no it isn't. People admired the Ford for its reliability and styling......no one would ever make that comment about a volvo.

Amen brother. Honda seems to have lost the innovative edge that it once had. They are still improving incrementally but no longer the leader they once were when the founder was still setting the agenda.

what do you think Musk is doing with Tesla, same thing.

@@seancollins9745 Far more. EVs represent a paradigm shit toward sustainable transportation.

@@deanrhodenizer938 what makes ice cars not sustainable? We're not exactly running out of oil, and modern engines run clean. In fact, EVs are not sustainable, especially for the masses.

@@deeplyclosetedindividual They use fossil fuels... Yea, it will take some time to burn it all but the time will come when it is all gone, and... we really need those hydrocarbons for the petrochemical industry.

I would expect higher milage out of a 2.73 rear end than a 3.08 rear end, so the 3.08 was at a disadvantage.

Great comment and additional history. As I recall, their lobbying worked to get the standards delayed; I want to say the President put the standards off for 2 years? I'd have to go back and look at that again.

very good summary:better than my commnt above !

Dunno where you get the idea that air pumps and other add ons went away with the advent of the catalytic converter . Many cars still used air pumps , and all still used an EGR valve and other stuff .

Yep, GM was being run by people who had no real engineering or production experience but they thought they were great managers because they were making a good profit today. So down the road they "managed" to turn what was once a "blue chip stock" company into bankruptcy because of that. A problem we still have today all across corporate America where people believe that management is only about managing and no experience with what they're doing is necessary.

@@HowardJrFord Due to tightening emissions standards that became necessary. And complex. And expensive.

woW

Exactly! The lower gears on the CVCC Impala mean it’s running higher RPM at every speed

@@MrJeffcoley1 which means the CVCC was at a disadvantage.

@@SonicBoone56 but the CCVC engine may have put out less power, which then necessitated the lower gearing.

I saw that as well. I currently own 2 Grand Marquis; one is a 1995 with a 3.08 and the other is a 1996 with a 2.73. In my experience, that is good for about 2 mpg. Sharp eye dude!

@@Adamroable The video didn’t say anything about Honda changing the drivetrain, 3.08 and 2.73 were both available options. My assumption is that’s just what the dealer had available

at 20 mpg, which would've been pretty good in early 70s; 20% is 4 mpg. 16 vs 20. Slightly worse is mostly appropriate vs 20% at 60 mpg 48 vs 60; but if you were getting 50, you'd not be complaining. To have the numbers mean anything, they have to be bigger. if you make 100k a year, a 20% pay cut is a huge 20k or around 400/wk. If you make 15k a year and get a 20% pay raise is around 50/wk. In the end, how people drive and think about driving would make the biggest difference. I drove a 75 Pontiac that no matter how gentle you drive, would get 9 mpg. 20 would be heaven in that thing.

I had an 87 RX-7 and 88 RX-7 turbo 2, and I still have nightmares about the rats nets of vacuum lines under the hood.

As would power to weight ratio, power curve of the engine, drag coefficient, transmission loss, rolling friction, etc, etc. Axle ratio is a factor but in no way directly comparable.

Yeah even identical cars with just a ratio change would make a big difference, my car came with a 3.08:1 diff, i put a 3.46:1 diff in, fuel economy went from 830km to 60ltrs freeway driving, to 620km/60ltrs City driving got better, if im in traffic and things, economy went from 500km to 600. So its a big deal. Not to mention untested things like tyre pressure, the ambient temperature of the day, the fuel used, lubricant oil level etc

Good catch! That 2.73 in the stock 350 would have been MUCH better on fuel economy than the 3.08 on the CVCC, especially since they were testing on a rolling road dyno. No weight, drag or other factors to skew it. I don't know the math, but someone out there in Internet land could probably calculate the difference in engine RPM. I wonder if they even had the same tranny...?

@mojoxerspootykat594 at 60 mph 2.73 would be ~2062rpm 3.08 would be ~2327rpm, so about 13% higher rpm for the cvcc engine. The cvcc engine got roughly 13% worse fuel mileage at 60, however the rate that fuel economy diminishes with rpm increases is not linear, and it would probably do better than a 13% increase in economy with the reduced rpm.

@@jameswolfe8065 you believe a stock 350 emission motor actually got 19mpg? Maybe 15mpg I might believe. Most 350s I have driven got 12 to 14mpg. But manufacturers exaggerated back then or cheated the system.

The CVCC was no fun to work on, but they were tough little motors and ran forever! By the time Honda brought out the PGM-FI their motors were incredible! In fact I think the late 80's early 90's saw the best motors to ever come from them.

@@christopher88719 Indeed! I think a lot of manufacturers had their best engines in the late 80's and 90's. Down in power by today's standards but a lot more reliable and easier to live with!

it took time to sift through all the vacuum hoses I agree. I wish it were more obvious when you got the throttle plates in proper relation.

All 70s and 80s smog carbs were a nightmare. However, Honda had significantly more vaccuum operated gizmos.

@@christopher88719 PGM-FI is actually still used on their motorcycles to this day

My Audi had the same problem, turning the AC on was like hitting a wall of marshmallows, in those days Audi bought its A/Cs from GM, when the Japanese got their own compressors, the result was about half the weight and half the power consumption of the GM units The GM units were fine if you had a big V8 and didn't care about gas mileage. Nobody uses the GM designed compressors anymore and GM no longer makes refrigerators, selling that business as well.

Same thing with my old '88 Hyundai Excel. Had to turn off the a/c to pass..lol

You're very welcome

Thanks so much! Means a lot hearing from you!

I was a Mercedes Benz technician at the time and I couldn't figure out how VW didn't need DEF but MB did. Once the truth came out it all made sense.

My mother has a Saturn Vue that partly came from that Japanese diesel program. Honda bought GM diesel engines for the European market and GM got Honda 3.5L gas V6s and 5-speed transaxles that went into the Saturn Vue. The V6 model has a big J-shaped air intake plenum that makes it obvious the engine wasn't designed for that chassis. But that smooth 250hp V6 is easily the best part of the car.

I was considering a diesel Jetta back then. I would only consider a no DEF engine. I would have been so angry if I had been duped by VW's fraud.

@@skylinefever it actually worked out really well for the customers. I bought a Golf TDI, owned it for 2 years, then sold it back to VW for more than I paid for it.

I can say, without a doubt, for … “reasons”… that I can 110% confirm they were going crazy trying to figure out how they did it. Until they knew.

The air injection pump was used to introduce oxygen near the exhaust valve to promote burning leftover fuel.

@@markg7030 Guessing it didn't work.

@@MJorgy5 It worked fine, but added a bunch of extra components to go bad. Once computers and FI came along, most, but not all, cars abandoned it.

It wasn't just diluting the exhaust. It was a cheap way to reduce HC and CO emissions by burning them off in the exhaust manifold with extra oxygen. It's been used in more recent times on some engines as well to reduce cold start emissions before the converter warms up, though it was generally a band aid to get an old engine design to pass new emissions standards for a bit longer without a more significant redesign.

@@61rampy65 I am wanting to say the last car I owned with an AIR pump was a 1991 Ford LTD. I don't think any of my current cars have it. (1995 and 1996)

@george9417 Yes, it's known as a "hegelian dialectec" (create problem, pretend to have solution) that restricts people's freedoms in allowing real innovative products to come to the marketplace, that will vastly improve the quality of life for the majority of people. Yeah we are "bootlickers" using out Federal Reserve Notes to transact business in the establishment , run by the individuals that the seal on the reverse of the US $1 bill depicts!

He actually said once "Honda will never build a two stroke." Course, that was right before they built the CR250 Elsinore

"Stroke's the word" - Billy Squire 😁

Agreed, he despised 2 strokes only adopting them later as rules in motorcycle competition restricted the number of cylinders allowable.

Back then two-strokes didn't last long in comparison to 4-strokes, and Sochiro was OCD about making the best possible products he could so that his customers got the best value possible. It wasn't the most profitable approach, only the best one. Too bad nobody else has followed him.

Welcome aboard!

I apologize if I got my facts wrong on that. I had a source that talked about Honda *not* having a 4-stroke (for their cars) until the Civic engine was completed.

@@AllCarswithJon No problem! Still a neat story I had not heard before! A bit of irony - the 350 Chevy is easily the most common racing engine in history (cheap horsepower...)

Honda still made a few Ag bikes and dirt bikes in the 60s and 70s as well as two stroke cars as well.

@@ldnwholesale8552 No. Honda never made a two-stroke car and after the early 50s, they did not make another two-stroke motorcycle until the motocross competition-only 250 Elsinore in 1973 and it's street-legal trail bike version in 1975. Are you, by any chance, confusing two cylinder engines with two stroke engines ?

@@CaptHollister yep! Honda motorcycle service tech for 45 yrs. I recall two twin cylinder air cooled 4 stroke cars in the late sixties. Basically just large motorcycle engine adaptations. I brlieve one was the E600 sedan. My boss that owned the Honda motorcyle dealership at that time drove them. Really small...even compared to a later Civic.

Yes, 3.8 V6 had Teflon coated timing sprocket. The engine was good for 90,000 miles. I knew this, but the 3.8 V6 was a great engine. I bought an '87 Olds 88 f.w.d. with a junk yard engine. I replaced the timing sprocket, and got 200,000 mi. The engine was good when I junked it.

you talk crap about a chevys timing sprocket at 115k, yet fail to mention the timing belt on your acura probably looked like the ground at desert valley.

@@frigglebiscuit7484 Please check my response. I was talking from experience about a timing sprocket on an Olds 3.8 L. V6, not a Chevy 350 C.I.

@@frigglebiscuit7484 The Acura RSX-S doesn't have a timing belt.

Yep. When you properly burn the HC, it becomes CO2.

Had some friends back in university that had a Honda with that engine. That was one tough car, it got by on poor maintenance and hard usage. I don't remember them ever having trouble with it or saying a bad word about it. Meanwhile I was driving a Buick hand-me-down from my aunt and uncle that couldn't go 10 miles without breaking. Car was lowish in miles and my Uncle had babied it so it wasn't just that it was worn out. Was a happy day when I saw the back end of that car going down the road.

better engines came to replace it.

I bought a 1980 CIVIV w/CVCC in 1983 as my college car. It lasted until 2003, with over 220,000 miles. The engine was solid, I never had engine problems, or fuel system issues (carburetor). I changed the oil every 3,000 miles, and that was it! Likewise, I never had transmission problems, other than two clutch plates replaced.

It might have remained in production longer if an EFI variant was built. Japan had an EFI CVCC engine, it was in the Honda Bulldog Turbo. Those had a 1.2L turbo engine, but I suppose it could have been applied to the largest NA CVCC engine. If there was a need to make a more powerful Honda, they could have applied the turbo to larger CVCC engines. The reason Japan got some extra small engines was because cars were often taxed by engine displacement. That also motivated Japanese car companies to build forced induction engines. The displacement tax is why their Datsun Z-car (Nissan Fairlady Z S30/S130) often had 2.0L engines.

@@skylinefever I think moving to 4 valves per cylinder is more the case. the EW which probably had the final iteration of CVCC forgoes an extra exhaust valve for the CVCC chamber. It would have been interesting to see further developments. An also Japan only fuel injected EW with CVCC made 110ps. Seems pretty alright for a 1.5 although more powerful engines like the d15b would come later with more modern head designs

Its called the LS lol

@@ChauncyFatsack Does "LS" stand for "like Sochiro's"? 🤣

Nah, proper CVCC heads have an extra valve & chamber for a rich fuel charge. That’s what I thought was interesting for a set of 350 heads. Hell, the spark plug on a CVCC head is tucked away in that rich mix chamber like an indirect diesel injector. It’s a goofy setup and Honda went Madlad & put it on an American V8.

@@chaseman113 Soichiro Honda also ordered a 32-valve 4-stroke oval piston V4 engine be built for motorcycle grand prix racing after all! It was supposed to compete with two-stroke engines of the same capacity by revving twice as high (it was not a success!). Mad ideas were kind of his thing by the sounds of it, lol. 😊

Corvettes were NEVER sold in Australia. Many six cylinder engines use less fuel than gas guzzling 4s!!

@@ldnwholesale8552 C1,2,3 Corvettes *were* sold in Australia. Sales to the Australian market ended in 1978 before resuming with the C8 in 2020.

Ford in Europe introduced 1.4 & 1.6 lean burn cvh engine around 1986 Europe, I think there might have been more lean burn engines from ford Europe but I can't remember

What Corvette? Gm or Holden never sold a corvette here in Australia.

I think Honda had some lean CVCC engines during the 1980s. There were a few that had a wideband O2 sensor.

Lol.....a 70's 4 cylinder that could run like a scared rabbit ?

@@HowardJrFord I kid you not! I had a Honda CVCC Civic back in 1976. Front wheel drive and that critter could flat out move! One trick Honda did was to design the engine for high R.P.M. which gave the engine to ability to give high output with small displacement.

A bit of thought. Do you mean 455 not 454???

@@lostinthesauce7175 I think you are correct about the displacement on that old Buick.

It's not just the engineers. It's the whole management oversight. The financial decisions. Cost cutting etc. Plus people need to realize that the equipment for manufacturing components such as engine machining lines are not something you just order and it shows up next month. The machining of transfer lines as they are called feature multiple stations that perform one specific operation per cycle. And every cycle the part is automatically transferred from one station to the next. One single set of machinery for machining an engine block can be up to a quarter mile long. From rough end to finish. And that's only doing the block. Add in machinery for the head or heads (1), bearing caps, connecting rods, intake and exhaustmanifolds, pistons, cranks, camshafts etc. And that's just the bare engine. All of this costs money. And once built and installed it is usually intended to be run a long time. I spent 30+ years working in an engine facility so I know something about the subject. 1) Depending on the engine design V type engines can require a seperate machining line for each bank.

Blind spots? The US auto industry of the 1970's was wholly useless, top to bottom.

@@seanm8030 Far too many years of riding with little to no competition. Plus the US auto industry decided to go all in on increased displacement with truely huge V-8s. Yes their were some 6 cylinders offered. The only fours I can think of produced domestically in the early 70s were for Pintos and Vegas. GM might have been building a four for industrial use unless the tooling had been shipped to Brazil.

@@mpetersen6 Yes.

I've also heard that the CVCC engines were prone to carbon deposits, which caused driveability and reliability issues. Regardless, this is fascinating. I always enjoy stories of how the "little guy" beats a huge company at its own game.

I haven't seen a cvcc Honda since probably the late 80s on the road. They rusted worse than any other car I've seen. My uncle bought one ,and brand new it had surface rust at all the sheet metal bracing under the hood at the edges. They started rusting on the way here on the boat.

@@MrTheHillfolk yes for sure. I live in a snow belt. Same here. The strut towers would literally break away from the fender. I used to see them pushing the hood up a bit sometimes. Lol

last time I saw my 300k miles cvcc engine.... car ran great up to that . the head may have had a problem... not certain. I think the fuel leak near the carb was involved. but honda had no parts for the repairs I wanted to do.

@@MrTheHillfolk oh man they were terrible rustbuckets. Great technology but dang, they did come off the boat with rust. Toyota too. We called corollas “corrodeds “.

The Texaco TCCS engine was more or less a spark-assisted diesel engine running on gasoline. Or, to be correct, it used some kind of kerosene. TCCS did not require high octane or high cetane numbers for the fuel. Thus, fuel refining could be simplified. TCCS had a big drawback since it produced lot of smoke (and particulate matter at full load. Its power was "smoke limited", just as a diesel engine. Here Proco had an advantage, since it used premixed combustion at full load, via early injection. TCCS had "late" injection (near top dead center) and thus, there was not sufficient time available for mixing fuel and air to the molecular level, which is required for smoke-free combustion.

A fully dressed 350 Chhevrolet with the usual automatic trans weighs around 800 pounds. The Honda civic was around 1600 pounds.

@@camillosteuss no, you misunderstand. I meant a fully dressed Chevrolet Engine and trans, not a whole assed car! Sorry about that!

@@camillosteuss and you are so right about Americans. Easy to spot as tourist in my land. And I prefer kilos, too. But a lot of this channel are from US I think, a d they have an aversion to metric measures.

@@suzi_mai damn, at least my common sense put me to correct conclusion that you meant the engine and trans... and i dont care about imp vs metric, i handle both, im a machinist, so that shit is all over the place and nothing unusual to me... hell, i even mix them and match them depending on work i am doing... and welding, 1mm is 40 amps, but 40 thou is 40 amps, so you know that any sheet of steel i see i instantly convert from mm that is my default reference into thou of an inch...

It was a byproduct of leaner mixtures creating higher peak cylinder temperatures. This is why many cars got lower compression in 1971 and EGR in 1973.

I had an 87 Prelude with the 1.8l twin-carb A-Series engine. Also a mess of vacuum hoses with the complexity of the human circulatory system. Save yourself a migrane: Just get a whole roll of vacuum hose and replace ALL the hoses one at a time

It's been nigh-on forever but IIRC there were 32 vacuum hoses under the hood with that engine and you learned to mark them all very carefully on removal. To Honda's credit it did work well when everything was right and allowed them to run carbs two years longer than anyone else could do. God help the mechanic who got one of these where some shade-tree idiot had messed up the vacuum hose configuration 😱

There was one interesting CVCC engine that might not have had so much vacuum junk. The Japan-only Honda Bulldog had the only EFI CVCC engine I know of. There was a turbo version, I don't know how much much vacuum stuff that had.

@@skylinefever Was that also the same engine used in the Japan-only Honda City/City Turbo of the same period? Always thought those were the neatest, coolest mini cars at the time!

@@carlm8821 Yes, I think City II Turbo was the alternative name to the Honda Bulldog.

I will acknowledge what you're pointing out, while saying that's a bit more 'granular' than what I was aiming for in the video. 😀

When I was still a wee lad back in 68 we lived in NorCal, and Dad drove us to Disneyland. As we got closer I saw what I thought were storm clouds over the city and was almost in tears thinking my dream vacation was going to be rained out before Dad explained that it was smog. You really had to see it to believe how bad it was.

I had a 71 Cutlass 350 and it got about 15 to 18mpg if I kept my foot out of it. That was the last year before they started butchering them with dropped compression, low cylinder TDC for fun dieseling, airpumps, etc...

Our 85 Civic Wagon with Cali-spec emissions was great up until it had 250,000 miles on it. Then all of those tiny vacuum hoses and all of those black boxes started to give up due to blistering heat in Texas. It wasn't worth the money to have a specialist fix them all. At least they gave us pretty good trade-in value.

Smoke test the emissions system. You can also just go ahead and replace every single rubber vacuum hose and their plastic connectors. We had similar issues and it's easier to just swap all those parts out and not worry about it.

@@marthamryglod291 Agreed. Get the vacuum line diameter specs, and buy 20+ feet of it. Replace all the vacuum lines one at a time, and it'll be fine. I did this with a California spec 1983 Toyota pickup. Just make sure you don't mess up the routing, by doing them one at a time.

If it was just fuel economy that created smog, prechamber non-turbo diesels would be excellent.

It was a Kline carb easy pezze 3 bbl carb and the jet valves

ignorance is not a reason to reject a change. Yes they required new learning, and setup procedures had to be followed EXACTLY. Something most American mechanics couldn't adapt to. In Japan they had no issues maintaining the vehicles. Same can be said for Mercedes Benz vehicles, factory maintenance procedures needed to be followed. Or the vehicles ran poorly or had "reliability" issues. Just a different mind set than was typical in USA.

@@chrisyu98 I don't you .....but i have 38 years of experience . that being said i don't think you have clue about repairing a vehicle

1980 Accord?? With the trim all collapsed in the sun. the Honda zeem blowing blue smoke and the general driving experience generally poor. And ofcourse the rust they all have. Three year throw away car. Yes I have owned those things ever only as trades

@@ldnwholesale8552 Dunno. At the time the competition was the joke Plymouth Horizon, etc. It had european econocar roots. I sat in one- a joke. The Honda sedan looked like a tiny Mercedes 300 and was neatly put together. I think I put 100k miles before I traded it. (That was a looooong time ago, btw. The video is about cvcc technology.) Take a peek: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-4EsXqHpjTQU.html&si=EnSIkaIECMiOmarE

Me too, i had a metallic green sedan, bought it cheap with 36,000km on it. Fixed a few little things on it and was to sell it, the buyer wanted it delivered to a vehicle transporter on the other side of the city, from the moment i started driving i wished i didnt sell it, it was comfortable, sounded good, not much if any road noise, felt awesome to drive, handled well.. It was just an amazing car. I wish it was my daily driver now. Modern cars dont feel like that at all

I had an '84 Accord CVCC and it did 350,000 miles before we made it into an off roader and took it to the shredder

2006 Honda Accord with the 2.4L, the K series engine are great engines. i believe the VTEC system replace the CVCC system.

@@crazeguy26 In the late 80s, there were no VTEC engines, but Honda ended the CVCC. I think they decided to use EFI and stop making CVCC engines. Not that they couldn't make an EFI CVCC engine, the Japan-only Honda Bulldog had an EFI CVCC engine with a turbo.

This really helps me understand how the CVCC engine had lower MPG with so much better combustion gas numbers. I thought it must have to do with ignition timing and heat loss to coolant.

I tend to agree that any major shift like this has growing pains in the early generation(s). Certainly I can see range, charging networks, electric production and distribution, recycling of batteries, and wholesale upheaval in used car sales coming. The big difference is this has been brewing for a long time and automakers, states, federal govnmt, and other private parties are all moving forward... together. There will be bumps, but hopefully not as disruptive as the change from the 60s muscle cars to suddenly power-starved and thristy 8's of the 70s.

@@AllCarswithJon problem is the whole EV push is a disaster. number 1 the national electric grid will NOT be able to handle a huge amount of EV's number 2 the mining of the materials will cause a huge amount of damage to the environment vs current gas/diesel will. and number 3 the avg joe will never be able to afford the crap. you got people who duct tape junkers together to keep running cause they can't afford a $1K repair you think they will be able to afford $27K for battery replacement? no way in hell I could afford to just fork over $27K for a battery replacement I don't have that kind of money and never will.

@@Dratchev241 It's even worse than that. Meanwhile, as I type this, in Wyoming there is yet another trainload of electric car fuel, aka coal, rolling out of the state headed for a power plant. Every time you convert one form of energy into another, you have losses. To operate electric vehicles I see the following: 1. Burning coal to make electricity, which entails converting a. Chemical energy into heat b. Heat energy into mechanical energy c. Mechanical energy into electrical energy 2. Charging the battery, which entails converting electrical energy into chemical energy 3. Driving the vehicle, which entails converting chemical energy into mechanical energy. There are five energy conversions to move an electric vehicle In contrast, operating a gasoline vehicle involves 1. Burning gasoline in the engine to convert chemical energy into heat. 2. Converting the heat into mechanical energy. There are only two energy conversions to move a fossil-fueled vehicle. (I'm also ignoring the refining of gasoline and diesel, which do take energy and have inefficiencies of their own. The power plant can burn coal as it comes out of the mines. I don't know to what degree this offsets the three additional energy conversions with the EV.) For EVs to serve our needs as efficiently, cheaply, and yes, as cleanly as gasoline and diesel powered vehicles do now, there are going to have to be vast improvements in the way we generate, move and store electricity. And yes, when that battery won't hold a charge anymore, replacement looks like it will cost at least as much as replacing BOTH the engine AND transmission of a gas powered car. How long will a battery last? It's the same technology as cell phone batteries and they last what, 3-5 years? Probably not 26 years like one of my Subarus. The other of my Subarus will turn 24 in March, 2023. I drive these old cars by choice. I can afford a new car, I just don't like most of the cars that have come out since about 2010-too many new technologies at once, too much computerization, too much tracking, too much hackability by those who may not have my best interests at heart. Too much stuff that doesn't have anything to do with getting from point A to point B too integrated with the stuff that does. (I have heard of cases that if the radio breaks, the car won't start because a chip in the radio controls functions of the engine. Then there's always the possibility of a buggy or corrupted software update that breaks things rendering your car useless or even unsafe.) I want an automobile. Just an automobile, not a rolling smartphone. When and if these issues are worked out, I think EVs will be great, but there is a lot of work that will have to be done to get us there.

@@dr.a.w When you consider the entire life cycle of grid-powered EV's and what it takes to power them during that life, they are currently no better than petro-powered vehicles- possibly even worse for the overall environment and the average owner. I drive older vehicles due to economic necessity mostly, and by choice since I can maintain these myself saving me a ton of money. We've got some tough choices and tough times coming up in the future regards personal transportation and the right decisions will not be the ones people want to live with, so I think people like us are going to exist for quite some time longer.

@@dr.a.w While there is some truth to everything you said, it is amazing how fast people and technology can adapt when forced to. There has been more research in batteries and alternative energy in the last 10 years then in the previous 40 years before that. There are tons of promising developments that people are investing heavily in creating the ability to mass produce them. I see some similarity between the perspective that you typed out, and the perspective of the big three automakers in the 70s, "It cant be done" FULL STOP, and then putting blinders on to the people who are working to solve these issues. Granted, there are no guarantees that any of these technologies will pan out, but it is clear that we can no longer rely on fossil fuels as we use them, and we need to continue to press forward on developing technologies that will allow our children and their children to live on this planet without having to clean up an apocalyptic mess that we left for them.

Thanks man, I appreciate the kind words!

They were. Mary Bara has done wonders with GM but they're still struggling to overcome the crap reputation of the past with almost no money to do that with. The car market is a very tough bullseye to hit these days.

Neither have I.

Is this true?

@@AllCarswithJon Apologies for me not checking my work, I had made a correction to the text and for some reason it ommitted the last crucial sentence. Yes it is true and it must date back to the 60s, it was an era when lots of claims were made, another was the ability of US spy satelittes able the read a newspaper from outer space and I believe they took a photo of the then leader of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev reading a newspaper in his back yard to showcase their prowess. The 60s where the best!