Talk:Honda J engine

300bhp
How fast is 300bhp? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.186.46 (talk • contribs)

According to my service manual (Pages 8-5 and 8-11), J35A7 has oil cooling jets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.200.180.87 (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible merge
I've suggested that the GM L66 engine page be merged into this one, along with its accompanying photograph (showing the notable lack of any Honda ID whatsoever). Duncan1800 (talk) 02:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

J25
"The J25A was the first J-series engine produced." Wasn't J30 in 1997 3.0CL, which was debuted in spring 1996, the first J-series engine produced?--North wiki (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Second or fourth V6 family from Honda?
Honda used the C name on three totally different engines that share no parts. The NSX engine, the longitudinal second-gen Legend engine, and the transverse V6 used in the first-gen Legend. The only thing they have in common is the 90-degree V-angle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.248.159.105 (talk) 01:44, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

edits by User:Carmaker1 incorrectly claiming 1998 TL (C32A6) is J32A1 and that Type S model existed in 2001 for TL, when it did not (only CL)
please see above.

The CL did come in the Type S trim in 2001, but the TL did not.

The C32A6 in the 1998 TL is similar in performance to the J32A1 (I had to do a double take since it's 200 HP like the J32A1), but they are different engines.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.36.194.45 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Excuse my manners, but you are a dunce. I do not give a hoot about your obsession with using U.S.-style model years to categorize a Japanese motor company's products. As far as I am concerned, the J-Series was introduced with the Acura CL in 1996, yet it was wrongly labeled as a 1997, due to ignorant individuals that do not realize in manufacturing, we go by date of introduction on the floor and not arbitrary model year designation. That is the real timeline, not imprecise model years.


 * I am sorry that I have responded this way, but I am so tired of how over all these years, I am forced to waste time correcting such easy to figure errors and deal with ignorance-based reverts. Also, if Honda was already producing the Acura TL-S in January 2001 for the 2002 MODEL YEAR, then figure the hell out that they already had these in showrooms well before the end of 2001 and therefore, it existed in 2001 and not STARTING in 2002. Stop wasting MY time with such trivial nonsense, as I have better things to do and have proven my point. Dates are dates and should not be any less concrete than they already are. If Acura introduced the TL Type-S in March 2001, then I don't see the weak points of this clueless IP user nor that of Vortex whatever user, that is sockpuppeting around on an IP address (instead of logging in) and edit-warring. Production dates have no basis with model years, as compared to actual production dates from start to finish.--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

--Carmaker1 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I will now be reporting User Vortex... to a noticeboard, as their behaviour constitutes both edit warring and disruptive editing. There is already proof that my timeline is correct, so now this is clearly a form of vandalism.--Carmaker1 (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I have been asked by Carmaker1 to contribute to this discussion. My own bias is to use calendar years (as understood by non-US readers) and to not use model years (as understood mainly by US readers) but I will try to keep an open mind and a civil tongue.

The WP policy for model years vs calendars is WP:MODELYEARS. This is necessary because to Americans a vehicle introduced in Oct 1996 is called a '1997' vehicle but is called a '1996' vehicle in practically the rest of the world. And unfortunately both sides misunderstand the other side so much that they are not even aware that there is another side. So, in many articles we get a British editor changing 1997 to 1996 and an American editor changing 1996 to 1997 - to the confusion of everybody. There is no perfect solution but WP:MODELYEARS tries to keep both sides as happy as possible.

In articles predominantly for American market vehicles (ie mostly ignored by non-American readers), we cater to American terminology by allowing model years to be used. However, we let non-American readers know what's happening by occasionally putting the words 'model year' in leading sentences. Eg 'The J series engine family was introduced for the 1997 model year.' Or better, 'The J series engine family was introduced in 1996 for the 1997 model year'. Or even better 'The J series engine family was introduced in October 1996 for the 1997 model year'. It can be a bit wordy to say that everywhere but done in a few key places it gives non-Americans a few clues while not getting too much in the way of Americans.

In articles covering a world-wide market (ie significant sales outside of America) we always use calendar years as the main terminology. However, to help American readers, we also sometimes sprinkle a few 'model year's around too. Eg 'The J series engine family was introduced in 1996 for the 1997 model year' or 'In 1996 (for the 1997 model year), the J series engine was introduced in the XXX'.

In both cases we must phrase it carefully so that readers understand whether calendar years or model years are being used for the unqualified years. Eg. 'The J series was introduced in the 1997 model year. It was updated in 1998'. The '1998' could be read as either a calendar year or a model year, so saying 'MY 1998' clarifies it a bit. Whereas if an engine is built from Oct 1996 to Oct 1998 then it is clear that a calendar year 1998 update doesn't make sense, so it must be model year 1998. If it sounds a bit confusing then you are starting to get the idea of what a foreigner is thinking when he reads your article.

For the infobox there is no choice involved. Production is always in calendar years - no exceptions! See. It's much clearer if you can provide months in the dates - 'Oct 1996 – Sept 1998' is clear to everybody. Unfortunately there is a no separate field for model years like there is in. There probably should be one. Please feel free to argue your case on the template talk page.

Anyway, after all that rambling, there is really only a single choice to made. Do we use model years (clearly qualified with the occasional 'model year' or 'MY' prefix) or do we use calendar years (with the occasional 'model year' or 'MY' added parenthetically). And this choice should be made based on whether the article applies to mainly the American market (use model years) or applies to a world-wide market (use calendar years). Personal use and biases (including my own) play no part. We cater to the readers, not the editor. Having unqualified years in the article and leaving readers to guess whether they are model or calendar years is not catering to our readers.  Stepho  talk 12:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would make sense to add an 'MY' suffix to avoid confusion. Especially considering the J-series is manufactured and largely used in vehicles sold in the American and Canadian markets. Thanks for the clarification. Vortex833 (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

validity of including the JNC1 in this article
JNC1 has a 75* bank angle, and uses timing chains to drive the DOHC valvetrain; the rest of the J-series engines have a 60* bank angle and use a timing belt with SOHC valvetrains. It would therefore seem to be unrelated to the J-series as a whole, so I'm not entirely sure why it's listed in this article. Carguy1701 (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some Googling has yielded the fact that it has the same bore and stroke as the J35, but that seems to be more of a coincidence than anything else; a couple articles have called it a 'race engine for the street'. I'm really leaning towards removing it from this list; if someone knows of any commonality with the J-series, say something. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Removed JNC1 from the list. No one has answered my question, and my own research points towards the engine being completely unique, not even having things like bore spacing in common with the regular J-series. Again, if someone can prove otherwise, please do so. Carguy1701 (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)