Re: Logical FACTS as to why a Honda is not powerful.

Discussion in '2002 Honda Civic Type-R' started by Honda rulez, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Here are a few FACTS for you to consider, you stupid import loving retards. And don't argue with a single point on here, read the whole lot first. The points all go together and I will call you stupid if you argue a point depite me having covered a base in another point.

    FACT: A larger displacement engine i.e. Bore/Stroke/Cylinders is capable of burning more fuel/air mixture per combustion cycle. This, in turn equates to the engine producing more power per cycle. This is a FACT. You CAN NOT ARGUE with fact.

    FACT: The better the intake and exhaust system, the more efficient the burning of the fuel. This is REQUIRED for any engine to produce its true potential power. If intake and exhaust efficiency was identical for a single cylinder on my 1972 Boss 351 to a single cylinder on your Civic type R, then my larger displacement bore & stroke would produce approximately that much higher % of power relative to the increase in displacement. (Not taking into account energy loss through increased mass of piston & rod assembly here, or compression ratio etc).
    But then, for every ONE of your little cylinders, I have TWO.

    FACT: A V8 configuration block assembly doesn't necessarily weigh twice as much as an inline 4. It's still based around one crankshaft. Power to engine weight ratio is better for a V8 if manufactured from the same materials as the Honda's. (Cast aluminium/silicon alloy, whatever).

    FACT: Cam timing is important, as it is directly related to intake and exhaust efficiency. Variable valve timing is also very good, however Honda's version of this (VTEC) is NOT very good. It only changes the cam timing to one different profile at a specific level of revs. This does not make a very big difference at all and in my experience I've only ever seen it make a honda noisier at higher RPMs, not faster. Ferrari's version is far different, the shape of the cam lobe changes as it goes along and as the revs increase the camshaft moves across changing the surface of the lobe in contact with the lifter. Apparently BMW have a prototype version of a solenoid controlled valve opening system all perfectly programmed into the ECU, so you have near perfect cam timing at all RPMs. These are more intelligent Variable Valve Timing systems as 1. neither require more components on the valvetrain to potentially foul up or wear out, and 2. they have a much bigger effect on performance than one little change above specific RPM.

    FACT: Higher RPM speeds engine wear and increases temperatures. A honda's engine needs to rev to stupid amounts of revs to produce any semblance of the small power it claims to be capable of. 8000 RPM? That's crazy. Why should an engine have to rev that high? A Larger displacement engine with more pistons only needs to rev around half that much to produce the same HP and more torque. This will make the larger engine last a lot longer by preventing overheating and excess wear on the bottom end & reciprocating assembly. It is also better, because getting up to 4000 RPM is quicker than getting up to 8000 RPM. All you honda lovers saying "My engine can REV up to 9000 RPM and your crappy V8's can't".... well good on you, see you in the shop buying replacement conrods and having your worn crankshaft machined. I'm pretty happy I don't NEED to rev that high to produce power. I would call that INEFFICIENT from an engineering standpoint.

    I could go on all day as to why a larger displacement engine is simply better than a smaller engine, but I don't need to. I'm right, all the V8 lads are right even though some of them may not know what they're talking about, and you import lovers know I'm right. Drag racers are right (the only cars in the world doing 4 second 1/4 miles are alcohol fuel V8 powered rail dragsters).

    There's no arguing about it either, because for around the same price or only a little more a V8 can always be made to produce oodles more power than a smaller displacement engine. That, and performance parts for a V8 are more common and can be obtained for cheaper than import parts.

    I'm gonna stop and let you try and find some argument now.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    Honda's use of the VTEC technology has lead to some pretty impressive achivements. This results in three camps of people: those that think VTEC is nothing but hype, those that know what VTEC is in terms of its benefits and limitations, and finally, those that think VTEC is the best thing to happen to automobiles since round wheels. Inevitably, misconceptions about VTEC are formed and thrown around. Much of the arguments on such forums as rec.autos.makers.honda is caused by such misconceptions. Here are some rather common ones:


    DOHC VTEC engines have low crank torque compared to non VTEC engines of similar power output, and crank torque alone is an important indication of how well an engine will accelerate a car. Therefore the VTEC engine's power rating is not "real".
    An engine's crank torque is directly related to how much fuel/air is combusted per engine cycle. For normally aspirated engines, this means that increasing the displacement size will usually result in increased crank torque. For forced induction engines, the effective displacement is larger than the numerical displacement since the air is pre-compressed before it is forced into the engine. Unlike increased displacement or forced induction, the VTEC system optimizes engine breathing at high RPMs to increase power. Therefore, a VTEC engine's displacement is the smallest of the three methods of increasing power output. And since crank torque is limited by displacement, a VTEC engine's crank torque output is smaller compared to non-VTEC engines of similar power output level.

    But this doesn't mean that a VTEC engine's HP is somehow worth less. In fact, Honda automobiles equipped with VTEC engines have performance numbers that agrees with the tried and true power-to-weight-ratio method of estimating acceleration performance. People hold this misconception because they have a fundamental lack of understanding of the relationship between crank torque, horse power, and acceleration. Crank torque by itself is meaningless in determining the engine's ability to accelerate the car. This is because the crank torque is multiplied by the gearing and final drive ratio before it is converted to forward thrust. And physics dictates that an engine putting out 160HP absolutely will provide more forward thrust than a 150HP engine, regardless of what crank torque the two engines have, assuming similar transmission efficiency and optimal gearing for both cars. This is plain high school physics. Unless someone can prove that the laws of thermodynamics and Newtonian physics are false, there is no way around this fact.

    There is some significance to the shape of the crank torque curve, however. When drag racing a car, it is desired to have a bit of initial wheel spin, and then have the tire hook up with the ground. A torque curve with a peak early in the RPM range and then tapers off as RPMs rise is well suited to this purpose. This is why big displacement American muscle cars are so good at drag racing. VTEC engines, on the other hand, have very smooth gradually rising torque curves. The initial wheel spin, therefore, is harder to achive. And after the initial wheel spin gets going, the level torque curve means that very precise clutch and gas pedal control is needed to allow the drive wheels to regain traction while maintaining maximum acceleration. This is why VTEC engines are more difficult to launch off the line than large displacement muscle car engines.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Once again you call me an idiot because I disagree with you. What does that say about you? argue by all means, have your opinion, but dont call people idiots because they do not share your opinion.
    You cannot compare secondhand to new, apples to oranges, Lotuses to Ferraris etc. How about comparing one of those 70's muscle cars to a Mac F1 eh? Srtill think its fair?
    You still go on about reliability and go on about theory again, saying a higher revving engine is going to be less reliable? You miss the point.
    If you took 2 engines, all manufactured to the same toleranes, same high quality processes and materials etc, and one was a big low revving V8, and 1 a high revving 4 banger, I KNOW that the 4 banger will be less reliable.
    BUT its a proven FACT that honda engines are still more reliable - they just never break down. What does that say about the engineering on a big V8. Once agian, you hint on my stupidity - in theory, but in practice you are proven wrong.

    Your fact WAS BS. GDI, and more efficient combustion chamber design -when you go on about intake and exhaust efficiency you should have mentioned that it included turbo/supercharging. Before you call me a retard again why not see how many people in the world would have thought you meant that. It will only be obvious to you because you wrote it and you know what you meant.
    GDI works by having an EXTREMELY high preassure injector (~100 Bar) inject fuel directly into the cylinder. Due to its position, the fuel is rich around the spark plug to ensure the explosion starts up properly and quickly, but weak elsewhere so less fuel is used. Allthough basically the same volume of gas passes in, less fuel does, and more power comes out. They do have nitrogen related emission problems though as they basically run weak overall. Do not suggest that I have no idea about GDI. Looks like you were the one without the clue there!

    Your mention about THEORETICALLY euqally efficient cylinders ios still wrong. The larger of the two (lets say its double the size to simplify things) would (as you say) produce just a little bit less than double the power, but not because of the reasons you stated (Not taking into account energy loss through increased mass of piston & rod assembly here, or compression ratio etc). All of those losses would increase in ratio with the capacity, same for the smaller version. The reason is as the combustion mixture burns at the same speed in both engines, the larger one would be burning for longer - it would be burning more fuel (relatively speaking) in the exhaust. Thats where the little bit of power would be lost.

    You missed the point about OHV engines and light. I also stated that OHV engines were light (especially V engines). I just stated the real reasons. re read my post.
    I dont see why you bother mentioning rotary spherical valvetrains (show us all how clever you are perhaps) That has nothing to do with OHV vs OHC its just another valve system.

    You state:
    "My facts are not mostly BS, you obviously just misunderstood what I was saying or did not pay attention to the post as a whole. And I WILL call honda owners and drivers retards if they think their car is a race car, hondas are a lame pathetic excuse for a performance car."
    It seems that you misunderstood a lot of what I was saying as well. What I can see from what you are saying here is anyone wah thinks their Honda is a race car is a retard. AT WHAT POINT DID I STATE THAT A HONDA WAS A RACE CAR? Then why do you call me stupid, idiot and retard then? On Hondas being a pathetic, lame excuse for a performance car, why do the British motoring press love it (the CTR)so much? This particular Civic is a good performance car comapred to the rest of the hot hatches - Thats what it is. There were only 2 faster hot hatches available in britain since cars began - The Escort Cosworth (0-60 5.7 secs, 227 BHP, 146 MPH) and The Pulsar GTI-R (0-60 5.4 Secs, 220 BHP, ~150 MPH). That makes it quite a performance car. If you start comparing it to Corvettes etc, then you prove you have no idea what a hot hatch is.
    Thing is, I dont even like Hondas that much. I just like this one and almost bought one a few months after they came out. I couldn't get my head around the styling though - it looked too much like an MPV.
     
  3. Engine mass

    If one looks at motorcycles for a second, for simplification, one will find that a bike with a smaller engine is going to be more "nimble" (admittedly a qualitative term) than a bike with a larger engine.

    600cc bikes will feel more nimble than bikes of 1000cc, and even though they have less torque and horsepower they are almost as fast as the litre-class bikes because they WEIGH less (or to use a more precise term, have less mass).

    Nihilist's point about engine reliability is well-taken and certainly is a "true fact" but Japanese engines compared to similar US (read four cylinder) engines with lower redlines generally are more reliable despite their peakier nature.

    I am not an engineer yet, so I cannot come up with a reason why this is so, but I know from data that it is true. [Several years of owner-collected reliability reports by "Consumer Reports"]

    As for Nihilist's opinion that "Hondas are not racecars" well that is his opinion, and I respect it. However, even though I agree with him, I contend that 70s musclecars are not racecars either (altho. I question whether cars from the 70s are truly fast, what with the early 70s oil crisis, and subsequent de-powering of cars).

    In fact, v. few cars are truly "racecars" any more; but so what? If someone thinks that their Civic is a racecar (ironic considering the name) then fine, if it means that they are getting max. performance out of it. I remember that Car and Driver said that it's more fun to drive a slow car fast than vice versa.

    Lastly, Nihilist, Honda Motorbikes are actually about as "good" as Honda cars, which depending on your opinion, is either v. good or simply mediocre.
    In the motorbike world, the best Honda sportbike is probably comparable in ability to the Honda S2000 in the auto. world. I would suggest that you back up your statement rather than throwing assertions out into the wind, such as how the bikes "are good, but the cars are not." Of course, the aforementioned statement is simply an opinion too, but a fairly conservative one shared by most people.

    Finally, nihilist, I am truly in awe of your understanding of cars and how they work. I realize that you are an engineer [as am I, or @ least I will B, soon, hopefully, <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> ] I have a lot of friends who are engineers (mechanical, electrical) and they know something about cars, one of them, a mech. eng. even works at Chrysler, continuing a job he had in school, but they have nowhere near the breadth and depth of knowledge that you have.
    BTW, that was not sarcasm; I know how e-mail can be difficult to interpret sometimes.

    However, I do disagree with you on the subject of four-cylinder engines, I agree that "there is no replacement for displacement" however, I believe that every car has it's own value.

    PS: could you possibly enlighten me (and others) on why a RWD car is inherently a better dragracer than a FWD car (I know why they handle better, FWD cars are too nose-heavy, is that the same reason?). My friend told me something about weight transfer. But I contend that in the snow, a FWD car is better b.c. of traction (weight over drive wheels), and this I know from experience, but then why wouldn't it be better in dragrace situations?

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TomW</i>
    <b>The point of having an engine rev high is so that you can make it smaller and lighter. Lighter = better cornering ability, and better handling (the two aren't the same). This is why Ferrari do it (check out the F1 Ferrari cars revving to 16000rpm or so), and also why Honda do it.

    If you engine is smaller, your car can be smaller (useful for small European roads) and lighter (faster, and better handling).

    Your comments about displacing fuel/air with turbos are misinformed. A turbo increases the pressure of the air entering the engine, so in the same size engine you have more air. If you are running at 1 bar (1 atmosphere, 14.7psi) of boost, then you have the equivalent of an n/a engine twice the size of yours, because you get twice as much air in per cycle (assuming the turbo is spun up). The hitch is that exhaust efficiency is reduced by the fact that the exhaust is running a turbine to compress the intake air. The main problem with turbos is turbo lag - you put your foot to the floor and nothing much happens for about 1/2 a second. This is particularly a problem when trying to steer on the throttle (power slide). The problem is reduced by using smaller twin turbos, or the new variable geometry turbine turbos which can spin up faster but yield the same boost.

    So if I have a car into which I can only fit a 2 litre engine, what am I going to do? Well, if I want to go the pure engineering, lag-free route, I'll make it rev like crazy, which means I'll have to add a variable cam system to give torque at low rpm as well as high. If I just want silly amounts of power, I'll turbocharge it.

    A 360 Modena can only fit a 3.6 litre engine or so under the bonnet, particularly if they want to keep the weight down. So rather than have an underpowered, low revving engine such as is found in Fords and Chevys, they put in an engine you could rev the nuts off, that gave 400bhp. Perhaps you are suggesting that the Ferrari would be a better car with a low-revving 6 litre 400ish bhp engine such as Vipers have, even though the kerb weight would go up by probably 10% or more?

    Honda are simply following the same principle that Ferrari do. The Civic can only take a 2.0 litre engine, Honda are experts in high-revving engines, so that's how they are going to make the power.

    Finally, onto the reliability issue. Japenese cars get their reliability from precision engineering techniques, good processes in their factorys, and high quality materials and metallurgy. In the UK at least, Japanese cars manufacturers are recognised as being the makers of by far the most reliable cars - the figures of the JD Power surveys back this up. Subaru and Mazda generally come top, with the others close behind. The only non-japanese manufacturer up there is Jaguar.

    I'll leave you with a simple question. Which would you rather have in your Ferrari?

    1: a 3.6 litre low revving engine making 220bhp
    2: a 3.6 litre high revving engine making 400bhp
    3: a 2.6 litre turbocharged engine making 350bhp
    4: a 3.6 litre turbocharged high revving engine making 450bhp
    5: a 6.0 litre low revving engine making 400bhp, but weighing 50% more than engine 1.

    1 is a typical 6 cylinder, 2 a typical Ferrari V8, 3 a chipped skyline (the engines are reliable up to at least 350bhp), 4 is a Porsche turbo straight 6 (although 3 and 4 are similar), and 5 is a big american V8. The figures are only approximate of course.

    Personally, I think I'd take 2.

    Tom</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    I see. So let's compare the Acura NSX to the Corvette Z06.


    The Z06 has 78% more displacement

    Does the NSX have...
    Less weight? No.
    Better weight distribution? No.
    Better fuel economy? No.
    More horsepower? No.
    More torque? No.
    Better acceleration? No.
    Better Handling? No.
    Better stopping distance? No.
    Lower cost? No.

    God I love those underpowered, low reving engines!

    1 Bar = 14.50377 PSI not 14.7
    1 Atm = 14.69595 PSI (although true atmospheric pressure will vary)

    The Ferrari 360 Modena weighs about the same as the 5.7 liter Corvette Z06
    The Ferrari 575M Maranello weighs more than 3800 pounds
    So much for Ferrari keeping their weight down.

    And the "which engine" question at the end is vague, inaccurate, and presented in a biassed fassion.
    Also, the heaviest current American performance car is about 30% heavier than the lightest Honda performance car, which means the average difference would be far less, which means your 50% figure was pulled out of your azz.


    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->NSx has less weight, same weight disturbution, same fuel economy, better handling.

    U must be kidding, the lightest Honda performance car is about 1500lbs (Honda Beat), I dun't think the heaviest american sports car is less than 2000lbs!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Mmmmm.... Shelby Cobra with Ford 427 Big Block V8 *drools*.

    That's basically a go-kart with a MASSIVE engine in it.

    TomW - Don't get me wrong here.... but don't Ferrarri release their cars with their engines already highly tuned to run at an optimal level ? You wouldn't be able to do heaps to tune up a Ferrarri engine because they already have all the flash expensive components in them with high build quality etc.
    .</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center>

    Right, but these "flash expensive components" are the whole point. Ferrari engines use Formula 1 derived engine technologies such as variable valve timing and light weight alloys made using complex manufacturing techniques. This is obviously going to give them a huge advantage over a engine using plain aluminium and iron and fixed cams or pushrods, manufactured using standard forging techniques.

    <center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>
    Chevrolet release the Corvette with the LS1 only lightly tuned with a mild cam etc... You'd only need to spend about $2000 on an LS1 to get it to generate almost half its power MORE.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center>

    Presumably the engine becomes unreliable. If this isn't the case, then presumably Chevrolet would make the modification themselves and release an even hotter stock Corvette. However, I suspect that the modifications you state are unsuitable for a production car, because the reliability is below that expected from such a car. The point of Ferrari and Honda engines is that they are reliable as well as being high revving.

    <center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>
    As YamahaR6 pointed out, torque is indeed a very significant factor. In fact it's Torque that is the main contributer to how fast a car is capable of accelerating, horsepower is more of a general power output measurement.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center>

    You're not seriously adding your support to YamahaR6's uninformed comment? Engine torque is pretty much irrelevent to acceleration. I suggest you look up the physics, but if you just want a real world example, check out turbo diesel cars. They produce high engine torque figures, but low power, and always have terrible acceleration, particular the 30-70 figures. The power-to-weight ratio is the only interesting single figure.

    <center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>
    My Ford Falcon with its 351 cubic inch engine only produces around 300 horsepower with mild mods, but it produces somewhere in the range of 500nm of torque. (This is an estimate going by the unmodified torque figure of 427nm of torque at 3000 RPM, using the stock intake manifold and carburettor & cam).

    My car can out accelerate jap cars with similar horsepower ratings up to a point, however my car is limited by its gearing so it's not a true comparison between engines.

    Just something to think about anyway.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    If two cars have roughly equal power, but one has much more torque, typically the second will get away from the line quicker because it is much easier to get it into the power band, since the band starts at lower rpm. That's basically what a high torque figure means - your power band is low in the rev range. Great for lazy driving, great for smoking your tyres off the line, but minimal advantage on a circuit, or if everyone starts in the power band. Once low torque cars are into their power bands (from around 6000 rpm for a Ferrari), they accelerate identically to high torque cars of the same power (all other things being equal).

    Anyway, I take your point about 1/4 mile runs. If that is your interest, then american/aussie muscle cars are the cheapest way to get good times. There is an alternative though - light weight. The Caterham R500 is a lightweight 230bhp car, and can post under 12s 1/4 mile times. The twin engined Tiger Z100 does 0-60 in under 3 seconds (2.97) using 2 204bhp Kawasaki motorbike engines - I suspect it would cover the 1/4 mile in around 11 seconds. 13 second 1/4 mile times are easy with cheap "kit" cars like Westfields and Caterhams ("Caterfields" as they tend to be known - you can buy them ready built).

    Personally, I'm much more interested in driving around corners than "traffic light grand prixs", but each to their own. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">

    Tom
     
  6. iv been kind of following this thread here and i must say that i am toatll impressed whith all who have made points. just when i was starting to think almost everyone on this site just made things up and spoke merely on impulse i fight a good post full of good, sensibly and incredibly knowladgeable people. thanks for the engineering information, the differences between big and small engines is much clearer to me now. thanks for expressing your ideas elequently and without become totaly byast to one opinion or another. congrats and thanks for the info

    PS- ihaterustangs, thanks ill be carefull, but u do too. dont go wrecking that camaro in your picture!
     
  7. #7 TomW, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SeansVette</i>
    <b>Oh really? Is that why when Road&Track tested the NSX vs Z06 they got...

    Better Skidpad: Z06
    Faster Slalom: Z06
    Faster Lap Times: Z06
    Observed Fuel Economy: Z06
    EPA Rated Fuel Economy: Z06
    Weight distribution: Z06

    And by the way, factory specs from both Honda and Cheverolet even show the Z06 to be 47 lbs LIGHTER
    NSX: 3164 lbs
    Z06: 3117 lbs

    I'll give you specific numbers and magazine issue when I get home. It's not the first time the Z06 outperformed the NSX in EVERY performance catagory. You might want to educate yourself before you open your suck. IT MUST REALLY HURT TO SEE YOUR UNEDUCATED STEREOTYPES COME CRASHING DOWN. But facts are facts.

    What the hell is a Honda Beat? I'm talking about the lightest performance PRODUCTION CAR, being the S2000 and the heaviest current American performance car being the 2003 Mustang Cobra. The Cobra weighs about 30% more. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Ok, I had a look at some figures to back up my claims. Firstly, about the Ferraris. The Ferrari 360 engine (what I was talking about), weighs 370lbs, compared to 497lbs for the Z06. So the Corvette engine is 34% heavier, but generates only 5 bhp more. The 550 Maranello (couldn't find weight details on the new one) has an engine weighing 512 lbs but it produces 485 bhp. The new one has 515 bhp, and I can't believe it weighs much more.

    The fact that the Z06 is made of cardboard (ok, fibreglass <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> and is therefore light weight is completely beside my point - that the engine is big, and produces quite a lot less power per pound. If you want to compare the light weight, performance focussed Z06 against a Ferrari, why not choose a light weight, performance focussed one like the F50? That would seem to be a more equivalent comparison.

    For your delight, here are some bhp per lb of engine figures I've worked out:

    F50: 1.19 (520/436.5)
    360: 1.08 (400/370)
    550: 0.95 (482/512)
    Z06: 0.81 (405/497.2)

    The smaller the engine is, the harder it is to make light weight (some components don't grow as fast as the engine displacement), so I haven't added any recent small Honda engines (they're around 0.7 or so). But in the 400+ bhp category, the Z06 looks pretty poor.

    The F50 weighs 2976 lbs, compared to 3115 for the Z06. What was your point again? The engine weight is only one factor in the overall weight of the car. The construction is the other one. (fibreglass and carbon fibre are light weight!).

    Now, your claim about the magazine results is pointless, because I can simply show you an article in which the NSX beats the Z06:

    http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/roadtest/evo_roadtest_story.php?id=25805
    (Evo is the best selling performance car magazine in the UK)

    Handling isn't about cornering g-force or anything like that, it refers to nimbleness, responsiveness and feedback - the driver and the car being in harmony.

    Anyway, I'd love a Corvette Z06, except that they're a bit big for UK roads. I'd love a Ferrari 360/Pagini Zonda/Lamborgini Murcielago/Maclaren F1/Porsche 911 GT3/NSX Type-R much more though (apologies if I spelt any wrong!).

    Tom
     
  8. #8 Nihilist, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Hi.

    Firstly, you say "You cannot compare secondhand to new, apples to oranges, Lotuses to Ferraris etc. How about comparing one of those 70's muscle cars to a Mac F1 eh? Srtill think its fair?"
    Why not ? Well, you can and I'm doing it.
    If you can compare a civic to a domestic, then you can compare something old to something new.
    There's no reason why you can't, the fundamental way an internal combustion engine works hasn't changed in the last 70 years besides becoming more efficient.
    In fact, I like making the comparison of a mildly modified 70s V8 (mildly modified, because as you said, they had very strict emissions standards imposed on them which resulted in their intake and exhaust porting being severely limited) to a modern day engine. Take one of those massive old motors, free up its breathing a little and you have a powerful beast of an engine. You just can't do that to the same extent with a honda out of the factory because they come tuned already. You have to spend a lot of money to get quality bolt on mods, or even more to get specific machining done.
    With my 351 Cleveland, all I had to do was buy an Edelbrock Performer intake manifold, and a Holley 600 Carby + all gaskets required. I went home, unbolted the old stuff, and threw the new ones on. Instant power increase within ten minutes. (Well it took a little longer because I did some match porting, but anyway).

    The other point you made about honda engines being more reliable... well... I always hear about honda engines breaking down. A friend of mine working part time at a petrol station (student) was telling me of a honda having an engine replacement the other day because it blew its old one up. This was only about three days ago. I hear about things like this all the time, I'm well known for my dislike of hondas and people make a point of telling me whenever they see a funny ricer or whenever they see a honda break down. I'd bet that Nissan engines are far more reliable than a honda engine.

    My statement about longevity in relation to revs is accurate and correct regardless of the car manufacturer. Sure, maybe honda use tighter tolerances than some other companies when it comes to machining their components like the crankshaft etc. The point is that modern OHV V8 engines, and even ones from the 70s have already had over half a century's worth of experience and testing to get the tolerances as close to perfect as they should be. So they are pretty good, you can't just say they aren't because that's not true. Cadillac are known to use the strongest crankshafts in the world.
    You rev any engine regardless of whether it's a honda or a V8 or whatever, up to 8000 RPM and hold it there for an extended period of time... you WILL break something or wear something out. The point was that a V8 doesn't need to rev that high to produce high power so it doesn't get exposed to the same dangers of potential malfunction because of high engine speeds.

    To the other guy: Yes, you have a point about civics not being race cars, but 70's tanks also not being race cars. No street car is built a race car, they're built street cars whether they're fast street cars or slow. However, the Ford Falcon & Mustang range have a very long proven successful race history especially in australia with Bathurst etc. I don't know of Honda having such a proven race history with the civic or integra type R, possibly in Japan ?
    I'd consider my mildly worked 351 Cleveland V8 in my own Falcon to be more of a race engine than the engine in a civic. My engine is near standard, it has a reground cam, aftermarket intake manifold, bigger carburettor and this setup is bolted to a C4 3 speed sequential quick shift gearbox. I have a more or less standard diff ratio as well. My car's been estimated around 300 horsepower by several experts and my estimated 1/4 mile at this stage is a low 14, high 13 perhaps. If I was to fork out for a performance camshaft, set of extractors and a high stall converter so I could launch I'd be in the high 12 second bracket, as that's what this other falcon with those additional mods to my own can already do.
    This is a cheap old NZ$3000 Ford Falcon (that's about US$1500). I haven't spent anything on this car in the way of performance modifications yet, but I expect to spend around NZ$3000 to get the three items I listed above and be in the 12 second bracket. I will also be able to install those components myself, good luck doing that on the civic or on most imports.
    This is pretty amazing, even to me. I wouldn't have believed it 6 months ago, but I've done my research and now I own such a car and I understand how the power is easily sourcable. You just CAN NOT buy a civic for this cheap, spend this little on it, and have it go that fast.

    To answer your question about why a RWD car would be better for a drag racing application than a FWD car, I can only answer what I think would be the logical reason why. (I haven't researched the the dynamics of drag racing yet).
    This would be for two reasons. Firstly, when a RWD car launches the sheer amount of torque going through the drivetrain and to the rear wheels just about lifts the front of the car off the ground, and in many cases it does. This is dependent on how much grip you have of course. Regardless, the majority of the car's weight is transferred to the back of the car onto the wheels from the launch and hard acceleration (just like when you're on a bicycle in a low gear, if you pedal too hard your front wheel will come off the ground).

    A guy here in New Zealand called Ronnie Lim turboed a honda integra type R with a Garret T04 turbo, and quickly became well known down at the drag strip as being quite a clever chap. Even though I don't like his car, it had a good turbo setup and it was doing 11 second passes down the quarter. (I think he ended up doing a 10 at one stage). In his first year of racing that car, he had no suspension coils in the back, but rather he had steel bars propping up the back of the car to force more weight down on the front during acceleration so he could get more grip. Despite being a FWD, the car still experiences weight transfer to the rear so this was his solution to that problem.

    The other reason a FWD car is not as suitable for a drag racing application (and this is only a minor reason) is a FWD is harder to steer under wheelspin. It doesn't matter so much when you're only going in a straight line however. I hope that settles that for you <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">

    If anyone's interested in checking out some pics of my Ford Falcon with its 351 Cleveland, go to this link:
    http://www.hashbro.com/broscars/shaun/falcon <!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Hehe, I can see why you say this is become the thread of half page posts. Sorry, but there is a lot to discuss at once. It would be convenient if we were in the same country, to sit around at a cafe and discuss this stuff over a cup of coffee or something.

    Just so you know, I don't call import lovers retards because they disagree with me. I call them retards because of the amount of money they spend on cars like hondas trying to get performance when they could save so much and get a better deal on a big old V8. Sure, it's a matter of preference, but 16 thousand dollars opposed to my 3 that I spent on my car?? Imagine how fast my car would be if I spent the difference (13 thousand) modifying the crap out of my engine. With that amount of money I have a choice of whether I want to supercharge it or insanely NZ tune it. Either way, with that amount of money, obtaining 500 horsepower out of my motor would be very easy.

    I have a cousin who restores cars, builds hotrods and races his own drag cars. He's been doing this since he was a teenager. He's won his division several times (in the 7 to 8 second bracket) and I've helped him with his latest project so far. He's rebuilding a 1955 Chrysler Firepower 331 cubic inch V8, using a modified cadillac crankshaft stroking the engine to 402 ci, and supercharging it, with mechanical fuel injection (the manifold for which he's designed himself). He's making a lot of the parts himself and having them cast out of aluminium. I've been helping him design a one piece mains girdle for his crank to take the load of a supercharger better than individual main caps. He is spending a total less than NZ$7000 to build a 1000 horsepower drag motor. That's just one example of intelligent, NON retard money spending. Sure, his engine won't be streetable, but that just means you could build a slightly less powerful and very streetable V8 engine for even less than what he's spending.

    Heh, I meant for this to be short.
    One more side note. I'm designing my own all aluminium engine to go into a car I'm restoring next year. I'm going to build a Ford Falcon XC Cobra replica and the motor I've already half finished designing is a supercharged 440 cubic inch, 7.25 Litre V10 with a smallblock bellhousing pattern. I'm also going to be using a one piece mains girdle. I will be using the Rotary Spherical Valvetrain to eliminate the need for camshafts etc, and I'm using multi point electronic fuel injection (an injector on either side of the rotary spherical valve, totalling 20 injectors) and a twin spark arrangement. I will be borrowing the design of the Chrysler Hemi combustion chamber as well. Included will be temperature probes all through the engine to monitor temperatures in various places, as well as knock sensors so I know if the motor's detonating. To prevent this potential problem I will also be including water injection to keep the cylinders cool and stop premature ignition in the event of the motor becoming too hot. My supercharger setup will be running only low boost, as I'm going to retain a decent compression ratio so that when boost is low from the supercharger the engine will still be potent until it hits full boost. This also enables me to turn off boost from the supercharger by completely opening the pressure relief valve on the custom intake manifold, saving gas on a long trip. I'm going to have to fork out some big money for the computer that'll be controlling spark and fuel injection as well as electronic throttle control to lower throttle during any potential detonation or a raise above specified operating temperature.
    It's going to be an expensive project to build and I know the cost involved. I plan to use only the highest quality components, including hypereutectic pistons, titanium conrods and a one piece machined billet steel crankshaft.

    So if anyone's interested, email me at unharmonix@hotmail.com and I can keep in touch with you and send you details about my design and pics of it. Any suggestions or advice as to any other interesting engine technologies would definitely be welcome.<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. Logical FACTS as to why a Honda is not powerful.

    Here are a few FACTS for you to consider, you stupid import loving retards. And don't argue with a single point on here, read the whole lot first. The points all go together and I will call you stupid if you argue a point depite me having covered a base in another point.

    FACT: A larger displacement engine i.e. Bore/Stroke/Cylinders is capable of burning more fuel/air mixture per combustion cycle. This, in turn equates to the engine producing more power per cycle. This is a FACT. You CAN NOT ARGUE with fact.

    FACT: The better the intake and exhaust system, the more efficient the burning of the fuel. This is REQUIRED for any engine to produce its true potential power. If intake and exhaust efficiency was identical for a single cylinder on my 1972 Boss 351 to a single cylinder on your Civic type R, then my larger displacement bore & stroke would produce approximately that much higher % of power relative to the increase in displacement. (Not taking into account energy loss through increased mass of piston & rod assembly here, or compression ratio etc).
    But then, for every ONE of your little cylinders, I have TWO.

    FACT: A V8 configuration block assembly doesn't necessarily weigh twice as much as an inline 4. It's still based around one crankshaft. Power to engine weight ratio is better for a V8 if manufactured from the same materials as the Honda's. (Cast aluminium/silicon alloy, whatever).

    FACT: Cam timing is important, as it is directly related to intake and exhaust efficiency. Variable valve timing is also very good, however Honda's version of this (VTEC) is NOT very good. It only changes the cam timing to one different profile at a specific level of revs. This does not make a very big difference at all and in my experience I've only ever seen it make a honda noisier at higher RPMs, not faster. Ferrari's version is far different, the shape of the cam lobe changes as it goes along and as the revs increase the camshaft moves across changing the surface of the lobe in contact with the lifter. Apparently BMW have a prototype version of a solenoid controlled valve opening system all perfectly programmed into the ECU, so you have near perfect cam timing at all RPMs. These are more intelligent Variable Valve Timing systems as 1. neither require more components on the valvetrain to potentially foul up or wear out, and 2. they have a much bigger effect on performance than one little change above specific RPM.

    FACT: Higher RPM speeds engine wear and increases temperatures. A honda's engine needs to rev to stupid amounts of revs to produce any semblance of the small power it claims to be capable of. 8000 RPM? That's crazy. Why should an engine have to rev that high? A Larger displacement engine with more pistons only needs to rev around half that much to produce the same HP and more torque. This will make the larger engine last a lot longer by preventing overheating and excess wear on the bottom end & reciprocating assembly. It is also better, because getting up to 4000 RPM is quicker than getting up to 8000 RPM. All you honda lovers saying "My engine can REV up to 9000 RPM and your crappy V8's can't".... well good on you, see you in the shop buying replacement conrods and having your worn crankshaft machined. I'm pretty happy I don't NEED to rev that high to produce power. I would call that INEFFICIENT from an engineering standpoint.

    I could go on all day as to why a larger displacement engine is simply better than a smaller engine, but I don't need to. I'm right, all the V8 lads are right even though some of them may not know what they're talking about, and you import lovers know I'm right. Drag racers are right (the only cars in the world doing 4 second 1/4 miles are alcohol fuel V8 powered rail dragsters).

    There's no arguing about it either, because for around the same price or only a little more a V8 can always be made to produce oodles more power than a smaller displacement engine. That, and performance parts for a V8 are more common and can be obtained for cheaper than import parts.

    I'm gonna stop and let you try and find some argument now.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. You can get performance parts cheaper for a V8 than for an import? I can get a turbocharger for an Impreza for less than $1500. How much is a supercharger for a Mustang?<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Ok.
    You get your cheap $1500 turbocharger for your import. Never mind the cost of a good wastegate to go with it to prevent overboost, nor a new ECU to control the new fuel and boost requirements, nor the cost of better pistons or conrods to handle the higher level of boost/compression. Unless of course you plan to replace your existing standard turbo with a newer bigger one and run the standard amount of boost through it, not increasing performance but probably hindering it. If it's a bigger turbo it's gonna take longer to spool up to full boost making it practically useless to install JUST a new turbo on an import. The cost of modifying an import adds up, as they tend to break a lot easier. Most of them are built proprietary and if you change one thing you tend to have to change everything. You can gradually build up a V8 engine for around the same cost, not placing your engine at risk of being destroyed.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. #13 Nihilist, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Oh hang on, I forget myself. You guys don't even get the Impreza WRX which comes standard with a turbo.
    This means you'd have to shell out even more for a completely new engine management system and decompression plate or decompressed pistons etc. You'd have to pay even more to put a turbo on an NA motor than you would to upgrade the turbo on an already turbocharged car, simply because the NA car hasn't been equipped for a turbo.
    I'm not saying you can't just buy a turbo and bolt it on with new manifolds, but you're gonna break the engine and drivetrain that way. You don't do performance mods to a car to break it, everyone knows that.
    By the way, please don't use the mustang as reference, I much prefer my australian built Fords such as this Falcon:

    http://falconcoupes.tripod.com/cobra.htm <!-- Signature -->
     
  14. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Here are a few FACTS for you to consider, you stupid import loving retards. And don't argue with a single point on here, read the whole lot first. The points all go together and I will call you stupid if you argue a point depite me having covered a base in another point.

    FACT: A larger displacement engine i.e. Bore/Stroke/Cylinders is capable of burning more fuel/air mixture per combustion cycle. This, in turn equates to the engine producing more power per cycle. This is a FACT. You CAN NOT ARGUE with fact.

    FACT: The better the intake and exhaust system, the more efficient the burning of the fuel. This is REQUIRED for any engine to produce its true potential power. If intake and exhaust efficiency was identical for a single cylinder on my 1972 Boss 351 to a single cylinder on your Civic type R, then my larger displacement bore & stroke would produce approximately that much higher % of power relative to the increase in displacement. (Not taking into account energy loss through increased mass of piston & rod assembly here, or compression ratio etc).
    But then, for every ONE of your little cylinders, I have TWO.

    FACT: A V8 configuration block assembly doesn't necessarily weigh twice as much as an inline 4. It's still based around one crankshaft. Power to engine weight ratio is better for a V8 if manufactured from the same materials as the Honda's. (Cast aluminium/silicon alloy, whatever).

    FACT: Cam timing is important, as it is directly related to intake and exhaust efficiency. Variable valve timing is also very good, however Honda's version of this (VTEC) is NOT very good. It only changes the cam timing to one different profile at a specific level of revs. This does not make a very big difference at all and in my experience I've only ever seen it make a honda noisier at higher RPMs, not faster. Ferrari's version is far different, the shape of the cam lobe changes as it goes along and as the revs increase the camshaft moves across changing the surface of the lobe in contact with the lifter. Apparently BMW have a prototype version of a solenoid controlled valve opening system all perfectly programmed into the ECU, so you have near perfect cam timing at all RPMs. These are more intelligent Variable Valve Timing systems as 1. neither require more components on the valvetrain to potentially foul up or wear out, and 2. they have a much bigger effect on performance than one little change above specific RPM.

    FACT: Higher RPM speeds engine wear and increases temperatures. A honda's engine needs to rev to stupid amounts of revs to produce any semblance of the small power it claims to be capable of. 8000 RPM? That's crazy. Why should an engine have to rev that high? A Larger displacement engine with more pistons only needs to rev around half that much to produce the same HP and more torque. This will make the larger engine last a lot longer by preventing overheating and excess wear on the bottom end & reciprocating assembly. It is also better, because getting up to 4000 RPM is quicker than getting up to 8000 RPM. All you honda lovers saying "My engine can REV up to 9000 RPM and your crappy V8's can't".... well good on you, see you in the shop buying replacement conrods and having your worn crankshaft machined. I'm pretty happy I don't NEED to rev that high to produce power. I would call that INEFFICIENT from an engineering standpoint.

    I could go on all day as to why a larger displacement engine is simply better than a smaller engine, but I don't need to. I'm right, all the V8 lads are right even though some of them may not know what they're talking about, and you import lovers know I'm right. Drag racers are right (the only cars in the world doing 4 second 1/4 miles are alcohol fuel V8 powered rail dragsters).

    There's no arguing about it either, because for around the same price or only a little more a V8 can always be made to produce oodles more power than a smaller displacement engine. That, and performance parts for a V8 are more common and can be obtained for cheaper than import parts.

    I'm gonna stop and let you try and find some argument now.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    You think you're so clever dont you. Call people who like imports retards coz they may disagree with you.
    FACT the 4 second drag cars you mention run off nitro-methanol (thats different to nitrous). The ones you mention have half the HP (about 3000).
    You go on about reliability. Those drag engines have to be rebuilt every 5 seconds. The old 1.5l Turbo F1 engines had over 1000BHP form their engines and they generally lasted for 70 Odd laps of a race.

    FACT You go on about larger displacement engines allways burning more fuel per cycle for more power. You forget turbo/supercharging. Also, changing valve/cam size, intake/exhaust design, fuel injection design etc you can make a smaller displacement engine create more power per cycle (or basically TORQUE) than a bigger engine even if they are both NA. Also more fuel burnt/cycle does not always mean more power - Better design of combustion chambers, GDI etc create more power/cycle and burn less fuel. Fine - you will not get a 2l to have the same power/cycle as a 5l, but that means that your FACT is BS.

    FACT you have no idea why OHV V8's are so light. Its because they have one camshaft sitting in the middle of the valley that uses pushrods to open the valves. There is fu ck all in the cylinder heads so they are very small. Look at any OHC angine and you'll see how much bigger the cyl. head is.

    FACT Hondas dont just use variable valve timing - they have vcariable valve lift aswell. Also, the new i-VTEC engines (like in this car)have a far smoother transition to the new profile than the old ones. If you've only seen them ger noisier at higher revs then you haven't seen many Hondas. The power output proves this.

    You go no about higher RPM engines being less reliable than the big lower revving engines coz they got to rev their ars off to get the power - that just proves how sh it american V8's are then as they are LESS reliable than the honda engines.

    so your FACTS are mostly BS. Theres my argument. Dont call people retards because they like a particular type of car. You abviously aren't a retard but you thiunk you know way more than you actually do. You sound like an acedemic that sits in theory all day.

    AND FINALLY
    Why do you compare a £16000 car to 50 odd thousand dollar domestics.
     
  15. When you said "we don't get the WRX", what the hell were you talking about? I own a WRX. And it isn't a cheap turbo, it has been very reliable so far. Also, I wasn't talking about every single part I have to replace. You said parts cost more for imports, so I gave an example of ONE part.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Ok. Firstly, it's unnecessary to copy my entire post into your own, I know what I said and I can scroll a few inches up my screen and read it myself if required.
    Secondly, I'm not an academic who sits around all day. I'm an engineer who designs mechanical assemblies and apparatus for many different applications so I have a good understanding of how mechanical componentry works. This is compounded by cars being my hobby.

    And yes, I do think I'm clever with a lot of things. Well, clever enough at least to appreciate that for the price difference between some new small engined Civic and a big old V8 tank you're getting a much better deal overall considering what can be done from there on. Who said you have to purchase a new car ? That's stupidity. Half the modern muscle cars aren't technologically superior to most V8s built in the 70s, and 70s cars have more style and cost next to nothing.

    What I said about which drag cars use which fuel is irrelevant. The point is that they are large displacement engines (V8) which produce that kind of horsepower and speed. Not a tiny little 4 cylinder VTEC.
    When I talk about reliability I am BLATANTLY obviously not talking about the race cars. The example of the drag cars was used to point out a fact about the potential of a larger displacement engine.

    When talking about engine wear and reliability, any even REMOTELY intelligent person can figure out that a spinning crankshaft and camshafts, plus reciprocating masses inside an engine are going to wear out quicker at higher RPM. You absolutely CAN NOT deny this. This is what happens in the real world. Therefore, the moving parts inside a motor producing 400 horsepower at 4000 RPM are going to wear out slower than the moving parts inside a motor revved to 8000rpm to produce 400 horsepower.

    My fact was not BS. You're just an idiot, and didn't read right. I did NOT forget turbo or supercharging. Turbo and supercharging are covered by the intake and exhaust efficiency section. As I said, the more efficient the intake and exhaust, the better the combustion of the fuel. Whether you use a supercharger or turbo to get better air intake, or whether you use polished porting and bigger valves etc, that's all irrelevant. It comes down to how efficient the combustion cycle is, and I provided a nice little comparison between 'THEORETICALLY' equally efficient cylinders, one being big and one being small. How hard is that for you to understand ?

    Also, do you even understand what GDI is ? It's direct fuel injection into the cylinder leaving the fuel perfectly atomised for the combustion process. It doesn't have to mix with the air in the runners or in the port before the valve thereby losing a bit of flow etc.

    FACT: I never said OHV engines were light. In fact, they are quite heavy compared to smaller engines. However their POWER to MASS ratio is better. Having only one camshaft rather than four is only one of the factors. It still only has one bottom end, but more top end components. Do the math, you'll figure it out. What about en engine not using camshafts at all, but using a rotary spherical valvetrain ? No camshafts, lifters, pushrods, rockers, valves, springs. None of that crap. It weighs very little in comparison to the conventional design and can be employed in any type of engine.

    FACT: I live in New Zealand. We get tonnes of imports here for damn cheap. I've seen enough hondas to last a lifetime. I've seen a huge amount of every single model of honda ever produced, and I know damn well what they're like and how they perform. We have stupid riceboys over here as well that go to the illegal night drags and I can tell you absolutely NO ONE is impressed by the integras and civics. They never win a race except against each other, and they make a hell of a lot of noise for the very small performance they deliver. Hondas are gay dude, why don't you see this ?

    "You go no about higher RPM engines being less reliable than the big lower revving engines coz they got to rev their ars off to get the power - that just proves how sh it american V8's are then as they are LESS reliable than the honda engines."
    What the HELL is this supposed to mean ? In WHAT WAY does an engine not NEEDING to rev as high to produce power make it less reliable ? That's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard. Damn some people can come up with the most stupid crap to defend their reasons for liking hondas.

    My facts are not mostly BS, you obviously just misunderstood what I was saying or did not pay attention to the post as a whole. And I WILL call honda owners and drivers retards if they think their car is a race car, hondas are a lame pathetic excuse for a performance car. They may be fine for an every day driver (my girlfriend drives a civic as a plain normal runaround car, nothing more) but they are absolutely not a performance car. I won't hassle Honda motorbikes because they truly are good, but the cars are not.

    Lastly, I don't think I know more than I do. I do not make up things, I say what I know and what I have learnt through reading and practical experience, and I use my existing knowledge to create valid arguments.

    Finally, I do not compare a 16,000 dollar/pound car to a 50,000 dollar/pound domestic. I'm talking about large displacement engines (which have existed since the 30s) compared to small displacement engines. I would personally prefer any small/big block V8 engine from the 70s and rebuild it than some crappy little modern 1600 or 1800 DOHC VTEC engine, simply because they are capable of producing more power.


    For the other guy, sorry man I don't know what country you're from. I assumed you're from the States and I didn't think they imported WRXes to there. If you're from elsewhere, well then fair enough. We happen to have an excess amount of WRXes and Skylines here as well, you can have them all.<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. I am from the States and we do get WRX's here. What we don't get is STi's, but I'm hoping they'll be available soon. From all your talk about r!cers it sounds like you don't hate all Honda's, just the people who add huge exhausts and gaudy bodykits without doing anything under the hood. I hate that too, it gives everyone with an import car a bad name. My WRX has aftermarket bodykit parts, but none of them are in any way significantly different from the pieces that came from the factory. That's how all modified imports should look in my opinion. And coffee-can exhausts are illegal here (too loud) but I've never seen any cops doing anything about it. So they are stupid, illegal, and yet so many people still have them. I think the legal drving age should be raised from 16 to 20, as it would give some people the chance to grow up before they ran out to buy a Civic and turn it into the ricemobile.<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. er

    Ok
    Well
    I don't quite know what you were trying to achieve with that post (and again, you pasted my original post into yours. This is not necessary).
    Everything you just said puts down hondas more than it does defend them. I can tell you that no amount of physics calculations etc based on VTEC's cam timing increasing horsepower are going to change reality. They SAY they produce all this horsepower, but I have yet to see a VTEC honda that actually goes fast. They make a lot of noise. :p<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. Re: Engine mass

    This is becoming the thread of half-page posts.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. YamahaR6 you are indeed right. There's always a better deal around than the good deal one just got. The point is I required a car which fit my criteria at the time (Large displacement old V8 in good condition) and I found one for very cheap. This car has absolutely no rust, a rarity for an old Falcon. The engine was recently rebuilt before I bought it, and it came with brand new 245 front tyres.
    Sure, motorbikes are faster than cars. I'm too scared to ride a motorbike, my dad used to ride them and he had a serious accident on one. I'm not interested in being in hospital for an extended period. I understand this is equally possible in a car but one gets a greater sense of security and stability in a car than on a bike. Also, I just like doing burnouts in cars and racing etc.... not bikes.

    Yes my car pollutes a lot, yes it sucks a lot of petrol, and no, such horsepower is not necessary on the road to get from A to B. Have you considered that some people deliberately get in their cars, and go from A back to A again just for a drive and for the hell of it ? I am a true petrolhead/car enthusiast and I drive my V8 whenever I get the opportunity to.

    The whole reason for my argument is my frustration with the excessive amount of imports in this country, and not enough good oldschool V8s. They are underappreciated and undervalued. The majority of these people who will go out and purchase a car such as this Civic wouldn't even concieve in their mind that a V8 has so much more potential power and you can really only appreciate that if you get the chance to get behind the wheel of one. I am fortunate enough that friends of mine had big V8s so I knew what they were all about. Had I not had the opportunity to ride around in them myself, I too would have stuck with jap imports.

    Hell, I used to drive a 1989 Subaru Legacy RS with the same EJ20 Turbocharged Boxer 4 engine just like in F1LM's WRX. I prefer the RS Legacy because it looks cooler than the WRX. I'm not a big fan of brand new round shaped bubble cars, the RS was more angular and had a better look to it. It was fun, and it was damn fast. I had a performance exhaust on it and I'd tinkered around with the boost hoses to make my turbo's wastegate never engage (cheap man's mod). Still tho, the RS just was not as quick as my V8 and the RS cost three times as much when I got it. I have more street cred in my Falcon too, more people look and more people tell me "nice car dude". Something which I am happy about <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">

    I had the good fortune today to ring a guy who owns an ACTUAL Ford Falcon XC Cobra, a genuine one of 400 made. I visited his house and I was blown away by how many muscle cars he has. He has five garages full and he rebuilds and races them all himself. His XC Cobra was running on race fuel, and it was bored and stroked out to 376 cubic inches.... the exhaust pipe was 5" in diameter. A truly awesome car. I took a friend with me who is into his toyotas, and you should have seen his jaw drop to the ground when this falcon started up.
    Amazing....<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. There is a guy in northern California who just built this huge house (we're talking 33,000sq ft). His GARAGE is 8,000sq ft (more than 4 times the size of my house) addn it is filled with cars. He has a Viper RT/10, a Countach, a 550, and at least one Saleen Mustang. But the best car he has is the 2nd Corvette ever made. It is the most beautiful thing I have ever seen! He hasn't changed anything about the engine, just replaced parts with newer materials. When he started that thing up I wanted to trash my WRX and go buy a Vette. Just goes to show domestics are just as great as imports.<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. Hmmm that's a good question. An engine can create a lot more horsepower due to many things, not just displacement. As I said, efficiency of the combustion cycle is a key issue.
    I don't know my Chevs that much, so don't take my words as being fact. (The following is about the Chev LS1 motor, not saying this is the same engine but it would be a similar one if not.)

    I have read about the design and development of the chev LS1 and one of the reasons it is so good is because of the long intake runners from the plenum chambers. Also, the LS1 engine's fuel injectors have been carefully positioned to get a clear shot at the top of the valve so that upon hitting the valve the fuel gets dispersed around the combustion chamber, and the heat of the valve helps to vaporise any droplets formed. Smooth intake and efficient fuel delivery make the Chevy LS1 engine lose less power on the intake because the air flows smoothly and not around sharp bends.
    That and the larger displacement, and a good combustion chamber design are some of the major factors in the the larger engine is capable of producing higher horsepower.

    You should do a search and read up on the development of the engine, this engine actually replaced a DOHC 32 Valve V8 known as the LT5, from the previous model Corvette. They went back to a OHV and pushrod design system but they made many other improvements to make this engine a truly technologically advanced engine over the old one.
    Among the other changes they've made changes to the cooling system and other things. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with the OHV system, I don't see it as being as potentially good as a DOHC system but in many other aspects it can be superior.

    For example, one camshaft to replace rather than two, or four. Slightly less weight because of this, but then there are more moving parts to wear out/break with the pushrod system and more potential for error because the cam profile shape is being transferred through a pushrod rather than directly onto rockers, etc etc etc....

    But anyway, these are some reason and I'm sure there are many other reasons as well. The Chev LS1 is a really good motor and it produces at least 1hp per cubic inch, with very mild cam timing. With cold air intake, performance exhaust, and an aggressive camshaft I'm sure it could easily produce over 400 horsepower.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. It now seems that that these half page posts are coming to a conclusion. I must agree with you on the spending of silly money to tune up a honda. These engines just shouldn't be tuned more as its extremely expensive to get any more power out of them, and you cant get that much more anyways (and yes i'm sure people have heard stories about 400BHP civics etc, but they will last about 300 miles between rebuilds). I also think pricks that put stickers all over their cars should go have an accident or something. We have the same problem in Britain with stickermobiles, except they say "motorsport" or in huge letters, the manufacturer of the car on a touring stripe across their windshields (as if everyone doesn't know, or the stupidest of all, "injection". Those pricks are obsessed with fuel injection. When will they understand that fuel injection isn't about performance? All they ever talk about is injection. How about Sodium Cyanide injection, PRICKS!!
    Sorry for the rant, they pi ss me off a lot, thats all. I cant go anywhere without one of these pricks hanging 2 inches off my bumper trying to race because my car looks fast.

    We obviously disagree on Honda reliability, and none of us are going to change our minds. I say agree to disagree. And not mention the word "retard" again shall we? unless its about ricers or as me and the rest of my mates call them, larries.

    In terms of the costs involved, it all comes down to personal preference. You get an old car, you pay less for it. You pay new car money for a Civic Type r and you get a helluva car for your money. You basically pay hatchback proces for a Hot Hatch. I dont think that theres anything wrong with the old school V8's, apart from the amount of fuel they burn, and I could listen to one all day long.

    YamahaR6 - the pic is an example of why RWD is much better than FWD, especially for acceleration.
    P.s. I forgot to include the reaction force on the front wheels, lifting them up, but basicaclly its opposite to the force pushing the rear wheels down.
     
  24. Damn! i forgot to include the pic
     
  25. Re: CO$T

    Well so far there's people from at least 3 different countries in this thread, and we all have the same problem with r!cers. It's amazing how many complete idiots there are for every intelligent car enthusiast. I think that everyone who wants to be just like the people in F&F should all take their cars and move to Siberia. There's plenty of room, they will all be interested in the same stupid things (like NAWZ) and best of all, they won't have to worry about overheating! Anyone agree?<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page