Honda Edix: Which Version Should You Choose?
The Honda Edix range consists of one generation of Compact Van produced from July 2004 to August 2009. The choice is therefore not between generations but among four configurations: two versions named 1.7 AT and two named 2.0 AT, distinguished by FWD or AWD. The 1.7 AT produces 130 hp and 155 Nm, while the 2.0 AT raises output to 156 hp and 188 Nm.
The Honda Edix range consists of one generation of Compact Van produced from July 2004 to August 2009. The choice is therefore not between generations but among four configurations: two versions named 1.7 AT and two named 2.0 AT, distinguished by FWD or AWD. The 1.7 AT produces 130 hp and 155 Nm, while the 2.0 AT raises output to 156 hp and 188 Nm. For a lighter FWD configuration, the 1.7 AT FWD has the lowest kerb weight at 1,360 kg. For the highest power-to-weight ratio and the only five-speed Automatic in the range, the 2.0 AT FWD is the strongest specification on paper. Buyers who require AWD can choose either engine, with the 1.7 AT AWD weighing 1,430 kg and the 2.0 AT AWD weighing 1,480 kg.
Honda Edix generations and version choice
There is one Honda Edix generation in the supplied catalogue data. The 1 generation ran from July 2004 through August 2009 and used a Compact Van body. It contains four versions: 1.7 AT FWD, 1.7 AT AWD, 2.0 AT FWD, and 2.0 AT AWD. No later generation or restyling is listed, so every comparison in this guide concerns engine, gearbox, drive system, braking equipment, and kerb weight within the same generation.
Honda Edix engine and specs comparison
All four versions use a front, transverse Gasoline engine with four Inline cylinders, four valves per cylinder, no boost, and distributed multi-point injection. Both 1.7 AT configurations have a displacement of 1,668 cc, a compression ratio of 9.9, and a bore and stroke of 75 × 94.4 mm. Both 2.0 AT configurations have a displacement of 1,998 cc, a compression ratio of 9.7, and a bore and stroke of 86 × 86 mm.
| Exact version name | Distinguishing configuration | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders and layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.7 AT | FWD, 1,360 kg | 130 hp (96 kW) at 6,300 rpm | 155 Nm at 4,800 rpm | 1,668 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 1.7 AT | AWD, 1,430 kg | 130 hp (96 kW) at 6,300 rpm | 155 Nm at 4,800 rpm | 1,668 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
| 2.0 AT | FWD, 1,440 kg | 156 hp (115 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 188 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.0 AT | AWD, 1,480 kg | 156 hp (115 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 188 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,998 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | AWD |
Moving from either 1.7 AT to either 2.0 AT adds 330 cc, 26 hp, and 33 Nm. The larger engine reaches its power peak 200 rpm later but its torque peak 800 rpm earlier. Calculated from the supplied figures, the 1.7 AT delivers about 77.9 hp per litre and the 2.0 AT about 78.1 hp per litre. Their specific outputs are nearly identical, so the 2.0 AT advantage comes mainly from its greater displacement rather than a substantially higher output per litre.
Performance, mpg, and fuel economy
Acceleration from 0–100 km/h is not measured for all four versions. Top speed is also not measured for every 1.7 AT and 2.0 AT configuration.
City fuel consumption is not measured, highway fuel consumption is not measured, and combined fuel consumption is not measured across the entire range. Consequently, an mpg comparison cannot be supported by the supplied data. CO₂ emissions and environmental class are likewise not measured for all versions.
Power-to-weight calculations can still show the relative performance potential without inventing acceleration figures:
| Exact version name | Configuration | Kerb weight | Weight per horsepower | Power per tonne |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.7 AT | FWD | 1,360 kg | 10.46 kg/hp | 95.6 hp/tonne |
| 1.7 AT | AWD | 1,430 kg | 11.00 kg/hp | 90.9 hp/tonne |
| 2.0 AT | FWD | 1,440 kg | 9.23 kg/hp | 108.3 hp/tonne |
| 2.0 AT | AWD | 1,480 kg | 9.49 kg/hp | 105.4 hp/tonne |
The 2.0 AT FWD has the best calculated ratio at 9.23 kg per horsepower. The 2.0 AT AWD follows at 9.49 kg per horsepower. The 1.7 AT FWD records 10.46 kg per horsepower, while the 1.7 AT AWD has the highest burden at 11.00 kg per horsepower.
Honda Edix dimensions, weight, and capacity
Exterior length, width, and height are not measured in the supplied data. Wheel sizes are also not measured for every version. Ground clearance is 155 mm throughout the range, and every configuration has a 50-litre fuel tank.
Kerb weight varies by version. The 1.7 AT FWD weighs 1,360 kg, the 1.7 AT AWD weighs 1,430 kg, the 2.0 AT FWD weighs 1,440 kg, and the 2.0 AT AWD weighs 1,480 kg. Gross weight is not measured for any version.
Both front and rear suspension are Independent, spring on all four configurations. Each version has Ventilated disc front brakes. At the rear, the 1.7 AT FWD uses Drum brakes, while the 1.7 AT AWD, 2.0 AT FWD, and 2.0 AT AWD use Disc brakes.
Honda Edix reliability and problems
Reliability ratings, failure records, service intervals, and model-specific problems are not measured in the supplied data. No evidence is provided for ranking either engine or drive system by durability. The specification table can identify mechanical differences, but it cannot support claims that the 1.7 AT, 2.0 AT, FWD, or AWD configuration is more reliable.
Which Honda Edix version should you buy?
For the best specification-based all-round choice, select the 2.0 AT FWD. Its 156 hp and 188 Nm exceed the 1.7 AT by 26 hp and 33 Nm, while its 1,440 kg kerb weight is only 10 kg above the 1.7 AT AWD. It also has the range’s only five-speed Automatic and the best calculated power-to-weight figure at 108.3 hp per tonne. Its rear Disc brakes are another specification difference from the Drum brakes fitted to the 1.7 AT FWD.
Choose the 1.7 AT FWD when minimum kerb weight matters more than maximum output. At 1,360 kg, it is 80 kg lighter than the 2.0 AT FWD and 120 kg lighter than the 2.0 AT AWD. It retains 130 hp and 155 Nm, but uses a four-speed Automatic and rear Drum brakes. Fuel savings cannot be promised because consumption and mpg are not measured.
Among the AWD choices, the 2.0 AT AWD provides the stronger engine. It has 26 hp and 33 Nm more than the 1.7 AT AWD while adding 50 kg, resulting in 105.4 hp per tonne compared with 90.9 hp per tonne. Both AWD versions use a four-speed Automatic, carry a 50-litre tank, provide 155 mm of ground clearance, and use rear Disc brakes.
Choose the 1.7 AT AWD only when AWD is required and the smaller engine is preferred. Compared with the 1.7 AT FWD, AWD adds 70 kg without changing the 130 hp output, 155 Nm torque, four-speed Automatic, 50-litre tank, or 155 mm ground clearance. Its clear hardware distinction beyond AWD is the change from rear Drum brakes to rear Disc brakes.
No purchase-price data is supplied, so the extra money required for any version is not measured. In purely numerical terms, the 2.0 AT upgrade buys 330 cc, 26 hp, and 33 Nm. The FWD-to-AWD change adds 70 kg to the 1.7 AT and 40 kg to the 2.0 AT. Overall, the 2.0 AT FWD offers the strongest power-to-weight result, the 2.0 AT AWD combines AWD with the higher-output engine, and the 1.7 AT FWD is the lightest Honda Edix listed.