My Si has a DX motor!
#106
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
#107
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
#108
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
#109
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
In article <elmop-2AA927.20041925012007@nntp2.usenetserver.com>,
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
elmop@nastydesigns.com says...
> In article <MPG.2022bac2940e63d898a15a@207.14.116.130>,
> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote:
> > And yeah, to say that I'm a bit chapped is probably an understatement.
> > This should've been disclosed by the dealer.
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
>
> The used car dealer's job is merely to present the car to you. It's not
> his job to be your friend, hold your hand, and look out for your best
> interests. You're on your own.
>
> That's not meant to be mean; it's simply reality. It's time you owned
> up to the fact that you live in reality.
>
> Did you do a carfax? What did it say?
As I said in my first post, it's entirely possible the dealer had no
idea about this - as jimbeam said, it's difficult to tell the difference
between the two engines externally. I'll admit there's no way of knowing
now, and so some of my previous comments were probably ill-advised; I
shouldn't be accusing the dealer of bad faith without proof.
What I have a problem with is *if* the dealer knew, and knowingly
misrepresented the car as an Si when it did not have an Si engine. I'm
well aware that in "reality", used car dealers screw customers every
day.
Dave
#114
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:19 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
#115
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:19 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
#116
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:19 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
#117
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
On Thu, 25 Jan 2007 20:04:19 -0500, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
>
> Um, no, you should have opened the hood and looked and known exactly
> what you were buying.
Sometimes, this works to the buyer's advantage, too.
My last Dodge Caravan was bought from a local Dodge dealer, used. When I
went there, he offered me a test drive, explaining that it was a
4-cylinder, but had plenty of power.
I drove it, and was certain that it was a 6. I had previously owned 2 6
cylinder 3.3L caravan's, and this one had the same feel, power-wise.
When he went in to get me a final price (based on it being a 4), I popped
the hood, and verified it was a 3.3L. It had only 30K on it, and I walked
away with it for just over $8,000.
I sure as hell wasn't telling him they had it marked wrong... ;-)
#118
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#119
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
#120
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: My Si has a DX motor!
Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/
news:MPG.20232ee8bef55bf298a15e@207.14.116.130:
> In article <Xns98C3CE967C977tegger@207.14.116.130>, tegger@tegger.c0m
> says...
>> Dave Garrett <dave@compassnet.com> wrote in
>> news:MPG.20230477ba6480a198a15c@207.14.116.130:
>
>> > Another data point: per the owner's manual, there's supposed to be
>> > a identification plate next to the radiator (right above the
>> > driver's side headlight) containing the engine number. This plate
>> > is missing on my car.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Hmm. I'm looking at your Owner's Manual right now. It does not show a
>> sticker in that location. The shop manual does though, but that
>> sticker should only show the VIN, not the engine number. The engine
>> number is only on the block.
>>
>> Some markets (Japan for instance) required automakers to record the
>> engine number on a plate within the engine compartment (usually above
>> left front wheel). I don't think this was ever done for our market.
>
> That's weird - I assume you're looking at the online version.
I am. From American Honda itself.
https://techinfo.honda.com/rjanisis/logon.asp
> I have
> an hardcopy manual here which I just got, and page 97 in it is
> identical to the online version, except the diagram shows an
> additional arrow for "Engine Number" pointing at the location I
> mentioned above, and the text reads "The Engine Number is stamped on
> the engine block at the right front side and on the identification
> plate on the radiator support bulkhead." It's a 1990 manual, and it
> has American Honda's address on the back cover, but it was printed in
> Japan.
>
According to Honda, the online version is the final one, embodying all
the additions, supplements and corrections issued since the paper one
was printed.
It's entirely possible the diagram in your printed manual is in error.
Like I said before, some markets did require the engine number to be on
a plate separate from the engine, and it's possible the wrong diagram
was used in the print version you've got.
--
Tegger
The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/