Old argument but an interesting webpage :

http://www.v8914.com/Horsepower-v-torque.htm

No real conclusions (as its all theoretical) but IMo says whichever the car has been designed for is ok...and of course your personal preference.

I agree with his points, and they are backed up with some pretty easy to understand figures. However the comment he makes at the end doesn't apply to an NA rotatry engine.

The NA rotary engine produces near maximum torque across two thirds of its rev range, compared to the small high revving engine he uses in his example. The Honda S2000 engine also has a larger area of torque than his example engine due to its VVT.

Therefore to extend his theory, it is probably the volume of the area beneath the torque curve that is important, when comparing disimmilar engine types.

Here is an interesting site about much better (still slow to RX-8 buyers) Camry 4 cyl.-like acceleration, coming from Toyota
(about a 2 second improvement to mid 10 sec.s in 0 - 62 mph times), where torque same as before for engine and H.P. max. up a tad (6) but more for System (12) at vehicle speed 85 kph vs. 120 in the old.

This is the high voltage system coming to the RX330, with an additional motor driving rear wheels. But in this system we are dealing with a 1.5 L engine.

http://www.toyota.co.jp/IRweb/special_rep/thsII/ths2_1.html

Although the Max. torque for the Motor is 400 N-m or 40.8 kg m
for rpms anywhere from 0 - 1,200, you have to look to last section on Drive shaft output (kW) to see how new System compares with old.

The 50 to 80 km/h Acceleration is 4.3 sec.s approx.

yes, this was Rich's old favourite site... a pretty good summary.

...if you haven't read it, basically it says "horsepower is a better way of determining how strong an engine is, as it accounts for rpm: torque and rpm are equally as effective at motivating something because of gearing".

Actually, the site I always linked was
this one (http://www.vettenet.org/torquehp.html), but Rob's is excellent.

Thanks for the link.

HP sells cars, torque wins races

Where's the :rolleyes emoticon when you need it?

( ') ( ')
. o
------

Will this do?:D

gord boyd,

I don't know if I mentioned this elsewhere on the forum. If I have, and anyone noticed, I apologized for repeating myself.

Anyway, my mechanic has a theory that hybrid systems will be the performance mod of the future. The current hybrids are all attempts to get 20% or better gas mileage improvements while minimizing any performance reduction. He thinks the way for Toyota or Honda make the technology profitable is to take, say, a Celica or a Civic SI and put the hybrid system in place without reducing the standard engine. If they can get 20% better mileage with a slight performance hit, maybe they can get 10% or even 15% better performance without affecting mileage.

Even if it would work, I'm sure it's years away. But I think the idea is interesting.

you mean something like this honda dualnote concept (http://www.autointell.com/asian_companies/honda_motor/honda-dualnote/honda-dualnote-02.htm)

Originally posted by zoom44
you mean something like this honda dualnote concept (http://www.autointell.com/asian_companies/honda_motor/honda-dualnote/honda-dualnote-02.htm)



....Oh. :p I guess it's already been done.

I'll take one!

I neglected to say that while reducing acceleration times by 2 seconds (0-62 mph), and perhaps bettering overtaking times vs. RX-8, mileage improved 15%, emmissions are down 30% from current Prius, and new platform at .26 Cd promises much quieter
highway sppeds. The savings of 66% the gasoline purchases
still don't make up for the driving pleasures lost from a finely
balanced chassis for most people, but who says this modular technology won't be shoehorned into a nice driving package.
They call this "Torque On Demand".

And who said Japanese lagged in creativity, or original research?
Not in the Auto industry.

Yep - hybrids should do well over the next 10-20 years while we wait for a hydrogen infrastructure to be built. I am replacing my Acura MDX (real world 19mpg, ULEV, 0-60 in 8 secs, carry 7 people etc) with a Lexus RX330 hybrid (due out at the end of 2004) which should give similar performance (0-60 in under 8 secs) but do over 30mpg and be even cleaner.

Originally posted by zoom44
you mean something like this honda dualnote concept (http://www.autointell.com/asian_companies/honda_motor/honda-dualnote/honda-dualnote-02.htm)

People on the Acura boards strongly believe the next NSX will be using DualNote to improve power/performance from the ubiquitous V6 (Honda refuses to build a V8 for various reasons).

Originally posted by pelucidor
People on the Acura boards strongly believe the next NSX will be using DualNote to improve power/performance from the ubiquitous V6 (Honda refuses to build a V8 for various reasons).

Interesting that they won't build a V-8. I hadn't noticed that until you pointed it out.

A properly massaged V-6 can be very powerful and lots of fun... but I would think Honda loses a lot of sales from their lack of an available V-8.

Absolutely - have you seen the sales of the $45k Acura RL with it's FWD and V6 that's weaker than a TL. I can understand Honda prefering a tuned V6 to a V8, but why no RWD (except for NSX and S2000 which just show they can do RWD well)? Sticking with only FWD is killing them in the $30k+ market for Acura (CL recently killed, TL sales slowing, RL very weak - only MDX is doing well above $30k, and RSX/TSX below $30k). I have heard that some future Acura vehicles (e.g. new RL) might be AWD...

Originally posted by Titanium Grey
The Honda S2000 engine also has a larger area of torque than his example engine due to its VVT..
Boo!!
Honda - VTEC
Toyota - VVTi

:p

I'm also dissapointed by Honda's reluctance to build more RWD cars with a V6, V8 or perhaps a straight 5/6.. :(
Does anyone remember the Vigor? It had an inline 5 but was it RWD? :confused:
I think Honda refuses to go V8 mostly for the weight savings which we all can appreciate but if you are going to market and price the NSX as an everyday supercar, a V6 with 300hp will not do. Shrug.

Originally posted by Quick_lude

Boo!!
Honda - VTEC
Toyota - VVTi

:p

I'm also dissapointed by Honda's reluctance to build more RWD cars with a V6, V8 or perhaps a straight 5/6.. :(
Does anyone remember the Vigor? It had an inline 5 but was it RWD? :confused:
I think Honda refuses to go V8 mostly for the weight savings which we all can appreciate but if you are going to market and price the NSX as an everyday supercar, a V6 with 300hp will not do. Shrug. It will if that V6 puts out an impressive amount of power (ie, BMWs 3.2 I6 with 333 horses in the M3), and manages to keep the weight down.

Well the NSX is already at 290hp.. so yes if this power was increased to around 340-360hp while keeping the weight similar the NSX would be in supercar performance territory. Imo I don't disagree with Honda that V8 engines are not totally necessary.. I'd rather have a 3000lb car with a 300hp V6 than a 4000lb car with a V8.. but if they are going to put out heavier cars like the bigger Acuras, Honda will have to up the hp ante somehow..

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Well the NSX is already at 290hp.. so yes if this power was increased to around 340-360hp while keeping the weight similar the NSX would be in supercar performance territory. Imo I don't disagree with Honda that V8 engines are not totally necessary.. I'd rather have a 3000lb car with a 300hp V6 than a 4000lb car with a V8.. but if they are going to put out heavier cars like the bigger Acuras, Honda will have to up the hp ante somehow.. Honda doesn't *have* to do anything... they sell an obscene amount of cars because they know what the hell they are doing... they market their cars properly and effectively and thus far even in the States, where we are all horsepower junkies, they sell exceedingly well.

I disagree they *have* to up the ante.... Honda has a plan and while I've never been much a fan of their products (except for the RSX, Prelude, and S2000), I have to admit that they build a quality product and offer it for the right price.

Building that 'supercar' is just an image thing that really... is inapplicable to Honda. When you think of BMW, you think M3, M5, etc.

When you think of Honda, you think Accord or Civic. That branding leads itself to being a great selling car regardless of the power they are putting out. They have reliability, clean design, and good value. And that's the image they will continue to send out. The S2000 is just an example of them making a car that's obscenely fun to drive.

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Imo I don't disagree with Honda that V8 engines are not totally necessary.. I'd rather have a 3000lb car with a 300hp V6 than a 4000lb car with a V8..

yeah, obviously that's true, but a V8 won't add 1000lbs, maybe something like 100-200 (if it's a really awful design)...

i think that Honda should get off their asses and make an ACTUALLY FAST supercar, something with the go to justify that kind of sticker price... even a "value priced" supercar?? say, a 450hp 3.0L-3.5L V10 (use F1 for direct advertisments) for a little more than what the NSX is at now??

Originally posted by Quick_lude
but if they are going to put out heavier cars like the bigger Acuras, Honda will have to up the hp ante somehow..

do a search on the honda dualnote i posted about it just yesterday so it shouldn't be hard to find. it's a hybrid. gas mid(in the back)engine driving the rear with electrics driving the front. 400hp. it's just a concept but i think it show the direction their headed for more HP and fuel economy.

True but Honda is in a dangerous territory imo. Judging from the feedback in our club, many people in the 18-30 category, and even me at 32 find the new Honda products bland and just plain boring and are NOT getting a Honda as their next car.. Sure they are great commuters, reliable and reasonably cheap.. but if you lose touch with the younger market that demands the "fun factor" in a vehicle that will eventually catch up to you.

I see Mazda now as Honda was in the late 80's/early 90's..
Back then the Civic although cheap was a very fun car to drive with the all independent double wishbone suspension and smooth revving, great little 4 banger engines. The CRX was a great little car, almost gokart like, light with 100hp and great handling.. The Prelude was the top of the line car that showcased Honda technology like 4ws and VTEC, etc.. It was a very fun car to drive, the 5th gen (mine) was billed as the best handling FWD vehicle under $30K US.. Nowadays the Prelude is gone, Civic, at least in North America is NOT fun anymore.. RSX type S has some potential but the styling leaves much to be desired imo.. The car enthusiast in me is dissapointed with Honda and like many others in my club, I'm looking elsewhere. The S2000 is a little too impractical for me, especially in the winter.. Honda needs to bring back the Prelude with RWD and a 4 cylinder 200-240hp engine.. shrug.

Mazda right now is making some very fun cars, Protege, RX-8, 6.. If the reliability stays up there Mazda has the potential to take a big chunk of the "fun crowd" away from others.. which should turn into future older customers..

Honda won't build a V8 (crossplane crankshaft) engine because it is morally against piece of shit engines.

The crossplank crank V8 is the lowest performance engine on the market. It edges out Inline 5 and V10s and also the boxing 4.

The V8 was an improvement over inline 8's of the pre WW2 era. Those I8's were effectively 2 inline 4 cylinder running simultaneously to counter the inherrent second order force imbalance of inline 4's. (How come they didn't want to use the Lancaster balance shafts for an inline4)

But the firing order of the V8 is it biggest weakness L R L L R L R R repeat
http://www.summitracing.com/tech/charts_guides/firing_order/tz_02charts_firing.htm#

The irregular firing is what give the V8 its characteristic sound. That is the sound of innefficiency.

Originally posted by Quick_lude
Does anyone remember the Vigor? It had an inline 5 but was it RWD?My current Vigor has 295k miles. You've got the engine right, but it is front wheel drive. Everyone car hear my CV joints announce this fact at every turn. I NEED my 8 ASAP!

Originally posted by Quick_lude
True but Honda is in a dangerous territory imo. Judging from the feedback in our club, many people in the 18-30 category, and even me at 32 find the new Honda products bland and just plain boring and are NOT getting a Honda as their next car.. Sure they are great commuters, reliable and reasonably cheap.. but if you lose touch with the younger market that demands the "fun factor" in a vehicle that will eventually catch up to you.As also a prior owner of the CRX, the GREATEST Honda ever made (mine had 300K miles when I was forced to sell it against my will), I too am leaving the Honda fold after 5 EXCELLENT Honda cars. This is all due to the lack of "fun/excitment" in their more practicle cars. If I had an extra $100k laying around, sure I'd love an NSX. But I need a daily driver now.

Originally posted by MikeW
Honda won't build a V8 (crossplane crankshaft) engine because it is morally against piece of shit engines.

The crossplank crank V8 is the lowest performance engine on the market. It edges out Inline 5 and V10s and also the boxing 4.

The V8 was an improvement over inline 8's of the pre WW2 era. Those I8's were effectively 2 inline 4 cylinder running simultaneously to counter the inherrent second order force imbalance of inline 4's. (How come they didn't want to use the Lancaster balance shafts for an inline4)

But the firing order of the V8 is it biggest weakness L R L L R L R R repeat
http://www.summitracing.com/tech/charts_guides/firing_order/tz_02charts_firing.htm#

The irregular firing is what give the V8 its characteristic sound. That is the sound of innefficiency.

Do you have any more sources to back that up? I would like to read about it. I'm not disputing you; I have no idea what the truth is. The kid part of me is hoping you're exaggerating the situation, but that's just because the revving of a big V-8 is music to my ears.

And which engines are the most balanced, then, besides our favorite the Wankel? Just curious.

Originally posted by FamilyGuy
And which engines are the most balanced, then, besides our favorite the Wankel? Just curious.
I would guess the flat 4's and 6's in Subaru and Porsche.. followed maybe by the inline 6's from BMW?

I'm surprised the Vigor was a fwd car.. especially since it had an inline 5 engine mounted longitudinally right? Just the layout of the engine lends itself to rwd.. How was the power transferred to the front wheels?

I'm very disappointed that Honda has chosen the "Toyota Camry" approach to their vehicles... and for whatever reason they do not bring over the hottest offerings like RSX typeR and Civic type R.. oh well, maybe in time things will change but unless I can live with the S2000 as my only car, looks like the 8 is a much more sensible and logical choice for my life. :)

Originally posted by Hercules
Honda doesn't *have* to do anything... they sell an obscene amount of cars because they know what the hell they are doing... they market their cars properly and effectively and thus far even in the States, where we are all horsepower junkies, they sell exceedingly well.

I disagree they *have* to up the ante.... Honda has a plan and while I've never been much a fan of their products (except for the RSX, Prelude, and S2000), I have to admit that they build a quality product and offer it for the right price.
I agree that HONDA are doing well for their price point (even though they screwed up the new Civic for the FF crowd). My point is ACURA are NOT doing well at all above $30k - the CL and RL are disasters, the NSX is now selling a few dozen a year and the TL is a lone FWD island in a sea of RWD and AWD luxury sports sedans at $30k-$40k. The only good selling $30k+ vehicle that Acura have is the MDX which is not FWD (it's predictive AWD - works brilliantly). I have one and love it, and I would like to consider getting another Acura but they don't do any RWD or even AWD sedans models (unlike Infiniti, BMW, Lexus, MB, Audi, Volvo, Mazda, Cadillac, Lincoln, Jaguar etc - i.e. every single one of their competitors has a non-FWD model somewhere for the enthusiast). The only reason someone would buy a TL is brand loyalty or content for the money, and the G35 offers almost as much content for the money and far more power/fun and I believe is eating their lunch (check freshalloy to see how many ex-TL/CL owners now have a G35).

To answer Quick_lude: the V12 (Ferrari, MB, BMW, Lambo etc) is the best balanced, followed by the I-6 (BMW and Lexus). I don't know how smooth the flat 12 in a Ferrari 512 BBi was, but nobody makes them anymore (gets ready to be corrected).

The funny thing is that the new Accord is actually slightly faster than the Mazda6. But according to all the reviews, the 6 is much more fun to drive. Even Honda motorcycles are said to be a little "too" refined. I don't know abou that. I think Honda's refinement makes up for my sloppyness, as far as motorcycles go. But, as far as cars go, I think they're dropping the ball.

The S2000 and RSX are fine. Honda needs to introduce the S2200 and an RSX Type R. That's in the works, I think.

The NSX needs the Dual Note's hybrid system, or a V-8, or an F1 isnpired V-10, or SOMETHING! But, for the love of all that is holy, she needs more power, Captain! And if she could drop a few pounds in the process, that would be swell. Oh, and keep the price the same. Ain't I a damanding bastard?

The Accord needs a Type S version. OK, it really needs a Type R version, like in Europe, but I'd settle for a Type S. It should handle better than the current Accord, be geared for better acceleration, have a 6-speed, and cost less than $30K.

And if Honda did everything I want, they'd be selling far fewer cars than they do now. But I would get my way. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what really matters in life.

Bah, it doesn't need more power. Ok, hitting that 300 hp number is probably necessary for the price they ask for an NSX. The real thing they need to improve is weight. Adding power helps straight line performance, but the extra weight that usually accompanies increases in HP means the springs need to be heavier, the brakes need to be heavier, etc. which all hurts other areas of performance. Reducing weight is the only thing that improves all measures of performance. Did you know that the NSX weighs *more* than the RX-8? Yep. Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/acura/nsx/100213876/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..8.Acu ra*) lists it at 3153 pounds. If they got the power up to 300 (for marketing to power whores) and dropped the weight to - say 2600-2700, there would be little else they would need to do to have it be a true supercar. 2600 isn't out of reason, IMHO. The Miata is 2400, MR2 is 2215, and the Elise that is suppose to hit our shores sometime next year (and is on sale in Europe now, I believe) is close to 1700 pounds, I believe. The Ferrari F360 is 3064, and the already mentioned RX-8 is around 2900, I believe.

Originally posted by pelucidor

To answer Quick_lude: the V12 (Ferrari, MB, BMW, Lambo etc) is the best balanced, followed by the I-6 (BMW and Lexus). I don't know how smooth the flat 12 in a Ferrari 512 BBi was, but nobody makes them anymore (gets ready to be corrected).
So what makes a V12 the best "balanced" engine? Why not the flat 4 or 6? I'm just curious.. :)

Originally posted by Quick_lude

So what makes a V12 the best "balanced" engine? Why not the flat 4 or 6? I'm just curious.. :)

as far as firing order and exhaust pulse timing, the 6 cylinder configuration (in either a straight line, V, or Vx2 (V12)) is the best.

Cool thanks. :)

...as a side note, the two rotor'd wanekl type engine has the same exhaust pulse timing as a 6 cylinder engine (per full rotor rotation)... :)

Originally posted by Quick_lude

So what makes a V12 the best "balanced" engine? Why not the flat 4 or 6? I'm just curious.. :) Horizontally opposed boxer engines (as used by Subaru and Porsche) are also inherently perfectly smooth (I didn't know that before...)

Here is a quote on the I-6 engine: The inherent smoothness of an inline 6-cylinder design is because it has both primary and secondary balance. Primary balance is when the crankshaft counterweights offset the weight of the piston and rod. Secondary balance is when the movement of one piston balances the movement of another. V6's have a secondary imbalance that causes engine vibration. Adding a counter balance shaft can reduce this imbalance, but that adds weight and complexity.


Here is an great article on smoothness of various engines: http://autozine.kyul.net/technical_school/engine/smooth3.htm

Inline 6-cylinder engines
...straight-6 engine is simply two 3-cylinder engines mated symmetrically together, thus piston 1 is always in the same position as piston 6, piston 2 the same as piston 5 .... in other words, the engine is balanced end-to-end and requires no balancer shaft, unlike 3-cylinder engines.
What about vertical / transverse forces? like 3-cylinder engines, the vertical and transverse forces generated by individual cylinders, no matter first order or second order, are completely balanced by one another. The resultant vibration is nearly zero, thus inline-6 is virtually a perfect configuration...

V12 engines
Theoretically the best balanced configuration for practical use. It is simply a duplication of inline-6 (therefore achieve the same perfect balance), with corresponding cylinders in both banks joined at the same crank pins. V12 is better than inline-6 just because it has more cylinders, thus doubling the firing frequency and smoothen power delivery.
Of course, the disadvantages are cost, size and weight.

There's no structural differences in crankshaft for all V12s, no matter for luxurious cars or supercars. Most employ 60°, although Ferrari prefers 65°.

I'm really surprised not many other manufacturers went with the Inline 6 configuration.. I remember the 240Z had one correct? The 3 series BMW, IS300, Supras, Ford F150 trucks.... :) Actually I think some of the new GM Jimmy's have an inline6?

Well, in the linked article it says that inline sixes take up a lot of space... you have to really play around to get it to work with FWD. Otherwise, you have to make your vehicle wide, or have a lot of length under the hood.

For pickups, and the new GM Envoy/Chevy Trailblazer, the space isn't really an issue.


Cool article though. First good points I've read why an I4 and I6 are more balanced than a V6 or V8. It also explains why high-revving 4's and 6's are more common than high revving 8's.

I had read somewhere that the Toyota Supra, which had an I6, could be heavily turbo'd with relatively low risk of screwing up the engine. I wonder if that's related to the whole balanced engine thing.

I don't think so.. The Supra inline 6 engine was just built with VERY strong internals from the factory which enabled it to take a lot of turbo boost. The Twin Turbo 6 will easly make 500 whp with turbo and other external upgrades.. on STOCK internals. :eek:

Keeping the cylinder count under a bakers dozen, these are fundamentally balanced.
V12-60 & 180 degree (Ferrari Testarossa, not a boxing engine-only 7 main bearing and no crank journal splay angle) & other odd angle V12s
Inline 6's-nuf said
Boxing 6'-Porsche/Subaru
Inline 8 as two Inline 4s-pre WWII
Boxing 8 (has poor firing order L R L L R L R R, probably why Porsche/Subaru haven't made it, yet)
Boxing 4-2nd order moment imbalance, L L R R firing order, hard to turbocharge well.
Boxing 2-BMW motorcycles
V8 flat plane crankshaft-two balance shafts flanking the crank-see VW W8 Passat, (Lotus Esprit Ferrari-lots, skipped balance shafts for more power at expense of refinement-side to side shaking of engine)
V8 crossplane crankshaft-2nd order moment/counterweights on crank
V10 72/90 and other 1&2 order moments, uses counterweight and/or balance shaft
V6's 60/90 and other 1&2 order moment, uses counterweights and/or balance shaft
Inline5-1/2 order moment-see V10
Inline 4-2nd order force imbalance-Lancaster balance shafts
Inline 3-see V6
Inline 2 same imbalance model as 1 cylinder engine
(V2 and V4) on motorcycles

1/2/3/4 rotor wankel-1st order moment-counterweights

The Corvette Z06 is faster and costs less than the Acura NSX.

Back on topic:
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power2.htm

Originally posted by Supercharger
The Corvette Z06 is faster and costs less than the Acura NSX.

Back on topic:
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power2.htm

...that's not saying much, the FD was faster and WAY cheaper than the NSX too...

Rich:

Yes, the NSX NEEDS more power. The Corvette Z06 is FAR more powerful (405Hp, 400ft-lb), lighter (3116lb), faster, quicker, handles better and costs less than the NSX. Check Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/chevrolet/corvette/100140133/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..8.Che vrolet*) again.

I say if Honda can't build a car that is lighter, quicker and handles better than a Chevy for the same price, they need to fire their entire engineering staff.

And yes, it still needs to be as reliable as an Accord. :D

Yeah but have you seen the interior on the Corvette? :o Looks like a $80K Cnd luxurious Cavalier.. yuck.. It certainly is very quick though.

While I'm getting ejumacated here...

Thanks for the info on balanced engines, MikeW. Here's my next question for you (or anyone else that feels like answering):

If you wanted an engine that displaced 4 liters in your car and generated lots of power, why couldn't you just put in a huge inline 4? Why do larger engines typically have more cylinders, instead of just larger cylinders?

Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Originally posted by FamilyGuy
If you wanted an engine that displaced 4 liters in your car and generated lots of power, why couldn't you just put in a huge inline 4? Why do larger engines typically have more cylinders, instead of just larger cylinders?


well, that is almost what Chevy does with their big-ass LS engines (well, all big-ass American engines) that are 7.1L and have 8 cylinders or something...

but basically put, the larger your pistons get, the greater your filling efficiencies become with more rpm, but more cylinders you have the greater the complexity, the greater the size of the engine (length of the crank is very important here), the more reciprocating mass, the more internal friction, etc... this is why F1 decided to go (for the most part: Toyota was prevented from building a V12 2 years ago now that the rules have stated "no more than ten") with the V10 unit for 3.0L as opposed to the V12 configuration: less moving bits, smaller package, although harder to get it to breathe right at 18.5k rpm...

Originally posted by wakeech


but basically put, the larger your pistons get, the greater your filling efficiencies become with more rpm, but more cylinders you have the greater the complexity, the greater the size of the engine (length of the crank is very important here), the more reciprocating mass, the more internal friction, etc...

What do you mean by filling efficiencies? I would think that if bigger cylinders give you better efficiency, then you would want larger cylinders.

I understand that having more cylinders adds a lot of complexity. That's why I am confused... what advantage does it offer?

Originally posted by Schneegz
Rich:

Yes, the NSX NEEDS more power. The Corvette Z06 is FAR more powerful (405Hp, 400ft-lb), lighter (3116lb), faster, quicker, handles better and costs less than the NSX. Check Edmunds (http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/chevrolet/corvette/100140133/specs.html?tid=edmunds.n.prices.leftsidenav..8.Che vrolet*) again.

Comparing the NSX to the Corvette is apples and oranges. The NSX is an ancient design, in automotive terms. I don't see why I need to check Edmunds again, since I never made any comparison to the Vette. Besides, the question isn't simply one of pure speed. When the NSX was released, it revolutionized the Exotic market. Every review for years afterwords (and still today, even) talked about the fact that it was the first car with exotic performance while maintaining the ability to be a daily driver. That means an unprecedented level of civility in daily driving in addition to reliability. It quite simply revolutionized the market. It was also considered the best handling car of the day by many. Of course, it's not competitive now in terms of performance, and that's why it only sells in the tiny numbers that it does. I never claimed that the NSX was faster (or better in any way) than a Vette, or any other car anywhere close to its price range. The '80s Ferraris did 0-60 in about 6 seconds. Will you claim that Ferrari needs to fire its staff of engineers because lots of cars can do it faster now? Of course not, because that's not a relevant comparison.

Originally posted by Schneegz
I say if Honda can't build a car that is lighter, quicker and handles better than a Chevy for the same price, they need to fire their entire engineering staff.
Again, I don't really know where this is coming from. Honda hasn't *tried* to build a car to compete with the Corvette. The NSX is a very old design; the Corvette is a fairly new design. No one is immune to the march of progress. Acura has clearly not had a real player in the performance market for the last few years. That doesn't mean they should stick a 450 HP engine in the NSX. That would be a horrible idea. Rumors have it that they are developing an all-new NSX, and that is the path they really need to take.

You did make one statement that was relevant, and that was that the NSX does need more power. Simply providing the numbers for another car doesn't provide any evidence for that claim. The Elise should have true supercar performance with a reported 190 HP engine. 0-60 estimates have been in the high 4s, but of course there isn't any test data to back that up yet. This shows that you can get supercar performance from low power engines if the total vehicle mass is low enough. The Elise also won the track portion of a comparison test one of the car magazines did a few months ago for the "best handling car in the world". It came in second overall to the Ferrari F360. It has incredible speed and is one of the best handling machines in the world, yet it doesn't have 200 HP. I'm not claiming that's the path Acura should take with the NSX, but to simply say that 290 is not enough for world class performance is simply and obviously false.

Originally posted by FamilyGuy


What do you mean by filling efficiencies? I would think that if bigger cylinders give you better efficiency, then you would want larger cylinders.

I understand that having more cylinders adds a lot of complexity. That's why I am confused... what advantage does it offer?

WHOOPS!! early morning error, sorry guy... your volumetric efficiencies DECREASE as piston size increases, at any given rpm.
so, if you want to make a ton of power with a given displacement (as in racing you would), you need to make as much torque as you can at as many rpm as you can... to do this, you need somethin that will breathe at the very limits of the engine's capacity to spin, so, smaller pistons with big big valves, short runners, lots of timing overlap... when your goal is so simple, there are lots of tricks you can pull, but the basic architecture has a very very heavy influence on the fundamental performance characteristics of the engine.
small pistons are easier to fill very very fast, and thus lend themselves to high rpm application. if all you need is torque from idle, then you get big-ass pistons that operate between 250-3000 rpm, like a turbo-deisel you'd find in a semi-truck (lorry).

Lets assume that the camshaft duration is only 180 degrees
and our engines are all running at 1000 rpm
So a 4 liter 1 cylinder engine has only 180 degrees of crank rotation to move 4 liters in 30 milliseconds
a 2 cylinder has 360 degrees of crankrotation, 60 milliseconds of valve opening
3 cyl 540 degrees, 90 ms
4 cyl 720 degrees, 120
5 cyl 900 degrees, 150
6 cyl 1080 degrees, 180
7 cyl 1260 degreees 210
8 cyl 1440, 240
9 cyl 1620, 270
10 cyl 1800, 300
12 cyl 2160, 360 ms
16 2880 degrees, 480 ms

Rich:

First of all, I'm saying that the NEXT redesign of the NSX will need much more power. At least 400hp.

Why? Refer back to your own quote.
When the NSX was released, it revolutionized the Exotic market. Every review for years afterwords (and still today, even) talked about the fact that it was the first car with exotic performance while maintaining the ability to be a daily driver.
Yes, Rich, we know that. But that is exactly the problem. The NSX has lost its claim to fame. It can no longer claim to be an exotic daily driver, because IT NO LONGER HAS EXOTIC CAR PERFORMANCE.

The NEXT REDESIGN will need exotoc car performance while maintaining its civility. And for that, it will need at least 400hp.

Comparing the NSX to the Corvette is apples and oranges.

Actually, it isn't. Read reviews about the Z06. They all say what reviews of the NSX used to say. A Ferrari-killer that can be driven every day comfortably. Chevy achieved what Honda achieved years ago with a vastly different design. The Corvette, therefore, is the car the next NSX needs to aim for.

I never claimed that HP alone is the only way to achieve performance. Bringing up the Elise is irrelevant, because the Elise is not what one would call "civil". The Z06 is.

Besides, the reason I brought up the Z06 is that you said that adding HP to the NSX will add weight.

Not necessarily.

Once again LOOK at the Vette. 405hp, yet weighs LESS than the NSX. That is what Honda needs to shoot for...

IN THEIR NEXT REDESIGN.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. They probably will add significant power in the redesign, but I claim that it is possible to achieve supercar performance with 300 hp or under in a car with day to day drivability. I don't quite see how one can really believe that 400 hp is absolutely necessary, and that seems to be what you're claiming. The Elise is relevent because it shows that supercar performance is possible with under 200 hp. True, it is not a civilized car, but I find it hard to believe that it is impossible to make a car with similar performance with 100 hp more and add in civility. The MR2 and Miata have plenty of civility for me, and they both weigh in below 2500 pounds (well below for the MR2).

I do admit a bias that is every bit as strong as yours is. I absolutely *love* the way lightweight cars drive. I've had the opportunity to drive some fantastic vehicles at their limits on the autocross course (I'm not a street or track racer, although I'd like to get into racing on the track), and every time I come away more and more impressed with the magic of light weight. To me, there's a synergy with the vehicle that absolutely no heavy cars can match, no matter what the numbers say. Given a choice between two cars of equal performance, I'll take the lighter one every time. To me, 2600 lbs. is about the maximum that a car can be and still stick a huge grin to my face repeatedly. True, there are plenty of exotics out there that weight more than that that I would probably enjoy, but they have a tall hurdle to overcome. If the next NSX can get the civility and performance to the levels it needs to be, I would prefer they do it with the lightest weight and lowest horsepower method necessary. I truly believe that it is possible to achieve that with less than 400 HP, and on that we'll just have to disagree.

It's interesting that I, for one, would MUCH rather have a vehicle that has barely improved in 12 years (the NSX) than a new Corvette. I am old enough to remember the absolute 'shock and awe' this vehicle caused the automotive industry in the early 90's (more than the Mclaren F1 or Enzo when they were released in later years). It is a legend that sadly never got updated. I am not sure what 0-60 time a car needs to be called 'exotic' in your opinion, but I hope some Ferraris and Porsches make it in there.

Car and Driver in their August 98 issue did a timed comparison of 0 to 150 mph to 0. In the stock class, the Acura NSX came in second to the Dodge Viper GTS. The 97 NSX managed a 0-60 time of 4.5 seconds and a 1/4 mile time of 12.9 seconds. The 0-150-0 was 35.9 seconds in 5191 feet. Five years later this may not be as good as a Z06 but it's good enough for me, plus sublime handling, stunning looks (except for the new headlights), all aluminium construction, and rarity together with utter civility and reliability.

When Honda totally renews the NSX (probably with an NA 3.5 liter V6) I doubt it will have as much as 400hp unless it really is a dual-note (perhaps 350-380 without dual-note - just a guess), but it will probably lose some weight to get performance up a little (without resorting to a plastic body like the Corvette which is not an elegant solution IMO). And they will sell every one they make even if the C6 Corvette is faster and cheaper.

Just a question - which would you rather have: a Ferrari 360 Medena or a Z06 Corvette (remember the Z06 is faster and a third the cost)....

Rich:

You're still bringing up irrelevant points.

Yes, the Elise offers exotic car performance. So what? It's not civil or comfortable to drive every day.

Yes, the Miata and MR2 are light and sporty and comfortable to drive every day. So what? They don't offer exotic car performance.

The NSX used to do both. It does not do both anymore. The Z06 does. The NSX needs to both again.

In order for a car to offer ALL the luxuries and ameneties today's drivers demand of an $80K vehicle, AND offer exotic car performance, AND be mass-produced, AND cost less than $100K, AND meet all current safety and emissions standards, it will HAVE to weigh about 3,000lb.

If you think a car can do everything I listed above AND weigh less than 3,000lb factory stock, then name one.

Sure, there will always be some people who will buy a slower 2-seat sports car that doesn't handle as well or stop as fast AND costs $38K more, but I'll never understand why.

Originally posted by Schneegz
Rich:

You're still bringing up irrelevant points.

Well, again, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think those points demonstrate that it may possible to have civility, performance, and a sub-3000 lbs. weight. Heck, the RX-8 shows it as well. It's about 2900 lbs. and could obviously lose a few (4?)hundred just from losing the back seats and adding aluminum in many places. Bump the power to 300 hp and spend $40,000 on the suspension and I think you could definately do it. I realize that this is somewhat of a strawman argument, but it's somewhat illustrative.

Originally posted by Schneegz
In order for a car to offer ALL the luxuries and ameneties today's drivers demand of an $80K vehicle, AND offer exotic car performance, AND be mass-produced, AND cost less than $100K, AND meet all current safety and emissions standards, it will HAVE to weigh about 3,000lb.

If you think a car can do everything I listed above AND weigh less than 3,000lb factory stock, then name one.
Just because the example doesn't yet exist doesn't mean it's not possible. That's my whole point. As I said in my previous post, I truly believe that it's possible to have a car with supercar performance with daily drivability and less than 400 hp. You and I will probably never agree on that, and I think that's really the fundamental block to any benifit to continuing this conversation. Based on the arguments you have presented so far, I believe that you will never convince me that 400 hp is necessary to accomplish this goal. Based on your replies to my arguments it's clear that I will never convince you that it is possible. Therefore, it seems to me this is at a dead end. I'm willing to just shake hands and agree that we disagree.

Originally posted by Schneegz

Sure, there will always be some people who will buy a slower 2-seat sports car that doesn't handle as well or stop as fast AND costs $38K more, but I'll never understand why.
Well, I certainly can understand why if by "handling" you mean numberical values measured by a magazine. Some people actually buy cars because they enjoy how they drive. Shocking, I know, but there are a few of us out there. If someone enjoys the way an NSX drives more than they enjoy a Z06 and can afford both, they should buy the NSX. The person who cares which one produces numbers over which car they actually enjoy driving more is the person *I* don't understand. Yet that's how the majority of people buy cars, IMHO. When looking for a car to purchase, I initially narrowed my list to 3 cars, with the S2k first, the MR2 second, and the Miata third. This was based primarily on the performance numbers. I drove 3 S2000s, a handful of MR2s, and over a dozen Miatas. Price wasn't really a big concern. At the end of the test drives, I was in awe of the S2000, impressed with the MR2, and in love with the Miata. It was the one that put the biggest smile on my face, and the one that gave me the feeling that I was dancing with the car. I have heard from lots of people that I should have bought either of the other cars, but I know I found the one that resonated with me, even though it has the worst "performance" of the three. I wanted to buy a car to drive, not one whose stat sheet I could post on my wall. I realize that's hard for most people to understand, but hey, what can I say, I'm wierd. :D

but hey, what can I say, I'm wierd. :D

you always end up making the most convincing posts! i definely belive that last line;)

it's good to see you posting rich.

i think you both make excellent points in your posts but have 2 different ideas of what performance means to you. at least you both are talking about making a car better and not trashing one.

Rich:

The NSX WAS a great car back when it was introduced. I'd like to see it become great once more. It's not like Honda to sit on their duffs for so long and let a great car become so outdated. I don't understand why they've done so in the case of the NSX

I mean, really, what does the NSX do to justify LESS performance AND a price tag almost $40K OVER that of the Z06? Does it give you road head on demand, or what?

So, Rich, we'll agree to disagree. But still, I'd like to know what you would do to improve the next generation NSX.

I'd like to see the Dual Note system installed. Honda's engineers have already proven that they can build a reliable, practical, useful hybrid drivetrain... twice! Yes, it's unorthodox. Yes, it's a whole lot of techno trickery. But NSX drivers have never been, shall we say, orthodox.

Besides, those electric motors would generate enough instantaneous torque to put '60s muscle cars to shame, making the torque vs. hp debate obsolete.

Originally posted by Schneegz
The NSX WAS a great car back when it was introduced. I'd like to see it become great once more.
Agreed. The NSX was the car that got me interested in cars. I wouldn't be on this board if it wasn't for the NSX.

Originally posted by Schneegz
I mean, really, what does the NSX do to justify LESS performance AND a price tag almost $40K OVER that of the Z06?
Never having driven one, I have no idea. I think I've heard that the sales of the NSX are in the low dozens a year, while I would guess that the Z06 is in the hundreds or thousands (wild guess). Obviously, for the vast majority of people, the answer is "nothing". Not having driven an NSX, I would tentatively agree that the Z06 seems to offer more for less. If (and I'm only saying IF) it was more fun to drive than the Z06 and I were in the market for such a beast, I would consider it. Of course, I would have to be wealthy enough that the fun factor was worth the vast price difference. I figure if I could afford an NSX, a bit more fun would be worth that amount of money. But I have no idea, the Z06 could certainly be more fun to drive. In that case it's really an easy decision. Save money, get better performance, and a more fun car. Simple.

Originally posted by Schneegz
So, Rich, we'll agree to disagree. But still, I'd like to know what you would do to improve the next generation NSX.
I think I already said above, but if not (I don't feel like re-reading) I'd drop the weight to ~2400-2600 lbs., ensure that it meets the reliability and drivability standards that people expect from an Accord, and make sure it has supercar performance. It should either win or be competetive in a competition for the best handling car in the world, since that's really the performance area that the old NSX always excelled at. Acceleration needs to be in the ballpark of the other exotics. The F360 and Z06 both have nearly identical power to weight ratios of 7.66 lbs. per HP. So, if they could get the weight to 2400, that would mean a 315 hp engine. But most importantly, it needs to be really fun to drive. I don't care if they use dualnote technology or a V8 or magic fairy dust, I'm concerned with how the car drives, not how they get it to do what it does. For me, fun to drive outweighs any other factor, and that's something numbers just don't convey. Nonetheless, if a car costs that much it should have numbers that roughly match the competition. 5.0 seconds to 60 just doesn't cut it any more in the $100k area unless there's some other overwhelming factor.

Of course, I suspect that market forces will ensure that the next NSX *does* have 400 HP. Even the supercar market is competetive, and HP numbers rule in the marketplace. That kind of power requires more weight, so it will probably end up just shy of 3,000 lbs. That will just help me to convince myself not to lust after it. ;) Not that I'll ever be able to afford one, of course. Heck, I can't even afford the car I really want, which is the Elise, and it's only supposed to be around $40-50k. mmmm...1700 lbs...

Originally posted by zoom44
(you) have 2 different ideas of what performance means to you. at least you both are talking about making a car better and not trashing one.

Agreed. I appreciate the ability to disagree without either side resorting to too much incivility. Auto enthusiast boards are know for that, and this board isn't as bad as most.

And thanks zoom44. I'm back on the road after about 6 months at home, so I need to find some way to amuse myself. Weekends are for driving, washing the car or racing, and weekdays are for trolling around the various sites I frequent. No family obligations for a few more months.

In the hybrid new system controls, the RPM of the engine is dialed in (and increased beyond what would be normal at lower speeds), by the Generator (capable of 10,000 RPM's), in order to exact efficiency. Another unique feature is use of vvt-i to
arrive at High expansion ratio cycle (lower) pumping loss
vs. normal. The timing for closing the intake valve is delayed, and in the initial stage of compression stroke (when the piston begins to ascend), part of the air that has entered the cylinder is returned to the intake manifold, in effect delaying the start of compression. In this way the expansion ratio is increased.
RESULT: the most thermally efficient gas engine in the world.

The 1.5L (system)TORQUE is rated 478 N.m vs. 216 N.m for RX-8.

Originally posted by gord boyd
Another unique feature is use of vvt-i to
arrive at High expansion ratio cycle (lower) pumping loss
vs. normal. The timing for closing the intake valve is delayed, and in the initial stage of compression stroke (when the piston begins to ascend), part of the air that has entered the cylinder is returned to the intake manifold, in effect delaying the start of compression. In this way the expansion ratio is increased.
RESULT: the most thermally efficient gas engine in the world.


Mazda already did this a long time ago (maybe not so long) with the Miller Cycle Millenia. It has something like a 8:1 Compression ratio and a 10:1 Expansion ratio with a Lysholm supercharger to aid in filling and minimize the lost intake charge.

Because the engine has no transmission, with the System Control,
driving power seamlessly responds.
Example:from cruising with a low power rqt to full-throttle acceleration (TORQUE-on-demand).

The Generator stops crank at same position each time and starting engine, after vehicle is already moving, takes 40% less time.

I was reading VTEC.NET, and here is a quote about Renesis.
"Some would even say they're a 3.9!!" L. eng. by notyper
under an 'Awards' thread.

Car&Driver top gear acceleration test

_________________ 30-50mph ______ Engine

Acura TSX __________ 10.2 s ______ 200 hp NA I4

Dodge Neon SRT-4 ___ 10.7 s ______ 215 hp I4-Turbo

Mazda RX-8 _________10.8 s ______ 250 hp NA 2-rotor

Subaru WRX STi ______10.9 s ______ 300 hp F4-Turbo

Mitsubishi Evo _______ 11.7 s ______ 271 hp I4-Turbo


All the cars have manual gearbox.

The Acura TSX has more low-end torque than other cars in the table.

I don't know much about 30-50 testing procedures, but were all cars in second gear or third or were they different from car to car?

edit: woops, I didn't read the first line.