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. CO$T

    Nihilist, sure, you could say that you spend less money making your car go faster, and I'm sure that you do. But I am also sure that you could find a car that was extremely lightweight and had a bigger V8 than your car, that was equally inexpensive.

    Or, I could go further and say that, you could get a vehicle that weighed barely twice your weight, yet produced more than 100 RWHP, and got better gas mileage than a Golf TDI; actually I've got one, it's called a motorcycle.

    In addition, this motorcycle would do the 0.25 mile drag in under 11 seconds and get to the mile a minute speed in under 3 seconds. This is an even better example of, in your own words, "intelligent, non retard money spending."

    BUt then, I wouldn't try to convince you that my opinion was "right", that your car pollutes a lot, how it sucks a lot of fossil fuel per mile, how such a "cagelike" conveyance is unnecessary to get you from point A to B, and how my "car" even with a few mods, say, US $1000, could smoke your car. But I could.

    It's easy to tell others, that their choices are irrational, but perhaps we should examine the proverbial plank in our own eye first.

    I thank you though, for your explanation of FWD vs. RWD drag racing. It was helpful.


    <!-- Signature -->
     
  2. Nihilist, I totally agree with what you are saying about the outrageous amounts of money some people spend on mods. In my opinion $10,000 is too much to invest no matter what car you drive. I am not a serious racer because of my job, so I don't have many modifications. However, with what I do have my WRX produces plenty of power and on a good day I can do the 1/4 mile in around 13.5 seconds. I only have new body parts (lightweight and slighty changed in appearance, nothing too tacky) and a new turbo setup (turbocharger, intercooler, wastegate) along with the necessary manifold reinforcements and new gauges and meters. That's enough for me, and I only spent about $3000.<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. Who cares how much OTHER people spend?

    See Above.

    What does it matter?

    Some people spend $1000 on a bottle of champagne. Why? Because they can afford it.

    Let those people waste their money on pointless mods like body kits, expensive wheels, and Boeing spoilers, not to mention coffee can exhausts.

    People seem to fail to realize that everything is relative; to some people (including myself) spending money aftermarket on a car is nonsense b.c. anything u spend, u r unlikely to get it back on resale. There are a host of other reasons which I won't go into here on why I personally keep my car stock.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Absolutely.
    Altho, what you call "domestics" have been great all along. Remember the import craze is a new thing.
    How old is the second Vette ever made ? 60s isn't it ? (I don't know my Chevs).
    I personally prefer my muscle cars but an oldschool Corvette would be something to see alright !

    By the way, they aren't really domestic to me :p I live in NZ, we have AUSSIE MUSCLE here. Much better than american muscle ;)<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Absolutely.
    Altho, what you call "domestics" have been great all along. Remember the import craze is a new thing.
    How old is the second Vette ever made ? 60s isn't it ? (I don't know my Chevs).
    I personally prefer my muscle cars but an oldschool Corvette would be something to see alright !

    By the way, they aren't really domestic to me :p I live in NZ, we have AUSSIE MUSCLE here. Much better than american muscle ;)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    I live in the States, so I call American cars domestics.<!-- Signature -->
     
  6. I wasn't trying to be rude, or to egg anybody on. In fact, if nobody had replied to my post, I was going to delete it.

    But i see that the people on this forum are educated people who don't take every opinion contrary to theirs as an excuse to start a flame war. ;)

    Nihilist, could you tell us about your Falcon? Is it a sedan, coupe?
    Other than Holden, are all other "Aussie" cars sold in Britain? (I used to live there, and still visit whenever i can).

    Car and Driver recently did a comparo. of the Holden HSV vs. BMW M5.
    BMW won, but Holden came close. In fact they described how it's victory was a Pyrrhic (sp?) one because it was so beat up at having to try to maintain it's lead on public roads and on the track. In fact, they said, if it weren't for the Holden's "plasticky" interior, (only b/c it is a luxury car of sorts) it would have won. It is certainly cheaper than the M5, I think.

    Nihilist, a question: in a review of the Merc. Marauder, C&D compared it to the 90s era Chev. Impala, and said that the 4.6L V8 of the Mercury even with all it's valves and cams, can't compare to the "pushrod grunt" of the Impala's 5.7L V8.

    Is the extra grunt attributable to the 1.3L disp. advantage the Chevy has or is it the pushrods? And how, if so, are pushrods inherently, any torqueier than a SOHC, or DOHC engine? <!-- Signature -->
     
  7. YamahaR6, your cool in my book buddy! You give good critiques but in an assertive and none-insulting fashion! Plus you give good opinions too! Keep it up man! <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif">
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  8. Re: R!CERS

    You know I made a really stupid mistake like that in 99'! I was at a Bachelor party for my Buddy's and one of my friends owns a "REAL" Monte Carlo SS! He fixed it up, and at the time I owned a red 88Iroc automatic similar to the one I own now but it had T-tops. Well we were drinking a bit, but in no way was I drunk, so we went off racing on the street. Well he lost control of his car and I swirved to avoid hitting him but lost control of my car and hit a parked car in the driveway. I was fine, and luckily nobody was in the other car. I panicked and fled. Well you know what? I got caught and the Police wanted me to take a Breathalyzer test and I denied it, (It does take away your rights fellas) Anyway, denying this they through me in jail for the night, I was scared, not becuase of who was in it, but because of what I've been through. You see I put myself in a situation that I could've avoided easily by saying no to my buddy on the street. Waiting to race him at the Track or taking the breathalyzer to prove my innocence in drinking. Man I thought I Fucked up royally. My family has drinking problems in the past and I thought I was part of it also, because of what I did. But my best friend pointed out how different I was, how I worked hard to get through college and that I don't drink that often anyway. So I kept my head up, and ironically bought another IROC a lot of people were disappointed in me for this, but I just cruise in it, and every now and then take it to the Race Tracks nearby where it's dangerous, but much more safe considering there are official medics and coordinators there. Not to mention there aren't any children playing around like there could've been on the streets.
    I know this was a long-ass story but maybe it'll put some sense into you. You could be lucky like I was and learn from mistakes like this, or not so lucky like the story mentioned before with the 360 and GT. Al in all, be careful out there fellas! <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  9. R!CERS

    How about the north pole? Maybe they'll lost it in the snow and fall off an iceberg or sommat. I've seen the way they drive on snow. Last year when we had really bad snow and I saw 2 accidents on front of me and 2 near misses. All because they were driving way too fast for the conditions (even though it wasn't very fast). I was doing 30 down a straight road and the car was going all over the place, so I slowed down to 20, only to have some twat overtake me in his ricemobile, and ditch it 50 yds up the road. I rolled down the window and laughed at him. (It was only minor crash)
     
  10. Re: R!CERS

    They day F&F was released a guy in a Mustang GT decided to street race a guy in a 360 on a residential street. Well the 360 ran inot a parked car at almost 100mph, and the GT followed shortly thereafter. Both the driver and the passenger of the 360 were killed, the driver of the GT was severely wounded. Some people just lack any common sense.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. 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.

    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.

    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.

    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.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Well that's true, I know about japanese dudes and their drift racing. They're pretty damn crazy doing that crap.
    I've seen the Initial D cartoon series as well, anime thing about that kind of stuff.

    I don't believe a lot of people do it over there, just a few groups of nutcases. They don't even do it very fast, as I've watched real videos of that stuff. They go quite slowly.
    The other thing is, drifting is the slowest way to corner, grip driving is a lot faster.

    Anyway, you don't drift a car around corners in real life, you drive it around to work and town and home etc, and race people every now and then. So having a car with a big motor is cool in those situations.
    (By the way, I'm sure a Corvette would be quite capable of mean drift driving, as would lamborghini with its V12 engine).</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->Oh no, in Japan, people do race on mountains, they do drift. I agree that drifting is not very healthy, but it's good for cars with narrower tires. <!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Honda makes the best dirtbikes,street bikes,ATV,s period.
     
  14. Thank you for the support. I didn't mean for this thread to annoy anyone (except stupid ricers who would read it and still not understand it).

    I meant for this thread to give people a better understanding of what V8 petrolheads are on about when they say their cars are better.
    Sure they don't always know what they're talking about themselves, which can make them as bad as ricers.

    I also meant for this thread to give a little insight into how an engine works and how to make it produce more power. Larger displacement engines are easier to do this with, and because I own one myself I used this as the example. Any of the principles I explained are applicable to any size engine, however with a larger engine the performance benefits of small modifications increase in scale.

    Anyway
    <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  15. so i guess a 360 modena reving up to 8000 is a bad thing too right dumbas, becasue Ferrari doesnt know how to make a car alright dude get a life and stop getting mad at cars that u care so little about y waste ur time douche bag
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from FerrariENZO</i>
    <b>so i guess a 360 modena reving up to 8000 is a bad thing too right dumbas, becasue Ferrari doesnt know how to make a car alright dude get a life and stop getting mad at cars that u care so little about y waste ur time douche bag </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    You're a dick you do know that right? When we talk about cars like this we're mainly talking about ways to make cars faster on the quarter mile! And basically I've never really seen any impressive numbers from a car that costs over six figures in that category so **** off! Oh yeah the 360 doesn't exactly have a small engine so know your cars better before you post!<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. Nihilist, You certainly know what you are talking about, Ford, GM, and Chrystler need you desperatley.
    It's very nice to see some intelligent arguements in these forums. I realize that it is just plain stupid to say that an engine with a larger displacement doesn't have the potential to make more power. However the fact is I see alot of American V-8's at work out there and I'm not seeing the power or reliability. Sure they have the torque, they spin their tires and what not, and they certainly make a powerful, intimidating sound. But they are simply not as reliable as most imports and do not handle as well. I'm sure the engineers who are responsible for the horrible things that Ford, GM, and Chrystler does with MOST of there engines (excluding the wonderful Corvette engines) (I actually love Corvettes) know the things you know, it would be nice if they applied their knowledge a little more.
     
  18. Well firstly I'm not impressed with anything Ferrarri makes. Sure they have good engineers etc, and their engines are reliable and can rev high. But AGAIN I raise my point of why an engine should have to rev that hard to produce the power. You can't argue against a question like that because it's just illogical to. An engine producing power at lower revs is GOOD.
    I never said anything about Ferrarri knowing nothing about making their engines and obviously their engines produce good power through the whole rev range. I'm getting mad at people who wank on about Hondas being the best car ever (and Nissan Skylines). These cars have tiny little engines. That means they are capable of displacing less fuel/air mix. Turbos can help, but at the end of the day you have to increase the size of the cylinder so it's capable of displacing more fuel/air mix. It's just stupid to argue against this. I've explained all this before, you'd have to be a retard not to understand.
    A 2.0 litre engine revving at 8000 RPM is displacing the same amount of fuel/air mix as a 4.0 Litre engine at 4000 RPM. (Providing they have the same efficiency for intake and exhaust.)

    As for the other guy. The only reason the V8s you have seen are unreliable are firstly because the drivers are idiots. They have no idea how to look after their cars. They'd thrash their cars and mistreat them. They'd never get oil changes.

    You can't tell me Chrysler, Chevrolet and Ford (Ford being the oldest car company in existance) are lacking engineering knowledge and can't make an engine as reliable and to as high a spec as jap car makers.
    They take a completely different approach to designing their cars. America has larger roads and they don't worry as much about fuel consumption as in Japan and the cars don't have to be small and compact and UGLY.

    Lastly, (and I'm not really concentrating on this post), I don't talk specifically about american cars. I'm not an american and I don't like americans or much about america itself. I like aussie muscle cars. I like australian designed and built stuff. I like australian women. When you try to tell me the american stuff is crap, I don't really care because you're not talking about that which I like.

    Capiche ?<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. I guess just about every person I know who drives an American car must an idiot, and every person I know who drives an import must know how to take care of their car; because that would explain it I guess. I believe you're right, Ford is the oldest car company, all the more reason why one would think they know how to build efficient, dependable vehicles, but apparently they don't. The only dependable American vehicles usually have Japanese engines.

    I knew they built cars in Australia, are there any Australian designed cars? I'm not trying to be a wise-ass, I've just never seen or heard of an Australian car.

    Australian women are incredible.
     
  20. Ok
    How often do you see a Ford Falcon XY, XA, XB, XC, XD, etc ? Or even Coupes of the above (excluding the XD) ?
    How often do you see the Fairmont ? (luxury variant of the Falcon).

    Speaking of aussie muscle cars, how often do you see Holden Toranas, Kingswoods, Commodores, HSV Clubsports, Senators etc ? Have you ever seen a Valiant Charger R/T ?

    The fact is you don't in the USA because they didn't come out there.

    Australia and New Zealand have a completely different breed of muscle car powered by ford, holden and chevrolet engines. We even have the Valiants over here powered by Chrysler motors.
    I think our muscle cars are way cooler than the ones you can get in the states. Check out the 1978 Ford Falcon XC Cobra, or the Valiant VJ Charger R/T, or the Holden Monaro etc.

    I don't hear of them breaking down over here and running into shitloads of problems. In fact here in New Zealand these rugged aussie built muscle cars handle our rough roads damn well and last a long time. Ford builds very strong and reliable engines as does holden, and all too often I see hondas and mitsis and other jap cars at the mechanic's being fixed. (This is when I visit my friend's dad who runs a mechanical services place).
    My engine is a 32 year old design. It's still got the stock internals, pistons, rods, crank etc. They won't blow up except with extremely irresponsible use.

    I repeat. The people you see in the US of A who have V8 muscle cars don't know how to look after their cars, and quite possibly the USA does indeed get worse quality vehicles than here. The thing is, most V8 muscle cars over here are at least 20 years old and still going strong. I'd suggest it's possibly the difference between mass production and extremely mass production.

    At the end of the day, my really old V8 is no less reliable than your latest Honda 1800 DOHC Vtec engine and probably more reliable as it wasn't designed to be disposable the way jap cars are. (Oh, it's around twice as powerful or more while being this reliable too, at lower revs).

    I guess that doesn't matter to you though does it. You're still going to think small displacement jap cars are better regardless of the logic staring you in the face.<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. I'm sure that larger engines (larger to a certain point) are generally better. Like you said low revs, more power per stroke, more reliability etc. I know fact, I'm not stupid. Yes perhaps the Ford and GM products you get in New Zealand are of better quality. But over here I see lots of people driving Japanese cars with well over 200k miles on them, in many cases they are younger drivers who beat the hell out of them, reving the crap out of the engines etc.. I see lots of domestics being repaired and considerably fewer imports being repaired. Many of my friends own Chevys most with less than 100k miles on them, and they are constantly being repaired. A larger engine is not more reliable if it's built like shit.
     
  22. You both are idiots! Even though you both make good points, the reason for saying we Americans don't take care of our cars is just plain foolish and biased. There are a lot more people here in the States then Australia or New Zealand so of course there are going to be more cars broken down, because there are more cars. I take very good care of my cars and I'm sure a lot of other US people here do too. At first I thought you made good points but now your trashing on our cars so how about this Bring out your Holdens and other Aussie cars out here in the states, take them to a race track and let's just see how Fucking great your car's are. You know what the problem is? Nobody goes on insulting cars from Australia and shit, but people like you feel like you can go on insulting cars and companies that own your Fucking Aussie companies. Kind of an Oxymoron don't you think?<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Well firstly I'm not impressed with anything Ferrarri makes. Sure they have good engineers etc, and their engines are reliable and can rev high. But AGAIN I raise my point of why an engine should have to rev that hard to produce the power. You can't argue against a question like that because it's just illogical to. An engine producing power at lower revs is GOOD.
    I never said anything about Ferrarri knowing nothing about making their engines and obviously their engines produce good power through the whole rev range. I'm getting mad at people who wank on about Hondas being the best car ever (and Nissan Skylines). These cars have tiny little engines. That means they are capable of displacing less fuel/air mix. Turbos can help, but at the end of the day you have to increase the size of the cylinder so it's capable of displacing more fuel/air mix. It's just stupid to argue against this. I've explained all this before, you'd have to be a retard not to understand.
    A 2.0 litre engine revving at 8000 RPM is displacing the same amount of fuel/air mix as a 4.0 Litre engine at 4000 RPM. (Providing they have the same efficiency for intake and exhaust.)

    As for the other guy. The only reason the V8s you have seen are unreliable are firstly because the drivers are idiots. They have no idea how to look after their cars. They'd thrash their cars and mistreat them. They'd never get oil changes.

    You can't tell me Chrysler, Chevrolet and Ford (Ford being the oldest car company in existance) are lacking engineering knowledge and can't make an engine as reliable and to as high a spec as jap car makers.
    They take a completely different approach to designing their cars. America has larger roads and they don't worry as much about fuel consumption as in Japan and the cars don't have to be small and compact and UGLY.

    Lastly, (and I'm not really concentrating on this post), I don't talk specifically about american cars. I'm not an american and I don't like americans or much about america itself. I like aussie muscle cars. I like australian designed and built stuff. I like australian women. When you try to tell me the american stuff is crap, I don't really care because you're not talking about that which I like.

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

    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
     
  24. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TomW</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Nihilist</i>
    <b>Well firstly I'm not impressed with anything Ferrarri makes. Sure they have good engineers etc, and their engines are reliable and can rev high. But AGAIN I raise my point of why an engine should have to rev that hard to produce the power. You can't argue against a question like that because it's just illogical to. An engine producing power at lower revs is GOOD.
    I never said anything about Ferrarri knowing nothing about making their engines and obviously their engines produce good power through the whole rev range. I'm getting mad at people who wank on about Hondas being the best car ever (and Nissan Skylines). These cars have tiny little engines. That means they are capable of displacing less fuel/air mix. Turbos can help, but at the end of the day you have to increase the size of the cylinder so it's capable of displacing more fuel/air mix. It's just stupid to argue against this. I've explained all this before, you'd have to be a retard not to understand.
    A 2.0 litre engine revving at 8000 RPM is displacing the same amount of fuel/air mix as a 4.0 Litre engine at 4000 RPM. (Providing they have the same efficiency for intake and exhaust.)

    As for the other guy. The only reason the V8s you have seen are unreliable are firstly because the drivers are idiots. They have no idea how to look after their cars. They'd thrash their cars and mistreat them. They'd never get oil changes.

    You can't tell me Chrysler, Chevrolet and Ford (Ford being the oldest car company in existance) are lacking engineering knowledge and can't make an engine as reliable and to as high a spec as jap car makers.
    They take a completely different approach to designing their cars. America has larger roads and they don't worry as much about fuel consumption as in Japan and the cars don't have to be small and compact and UGLY.

    Lastly, (and I'm not really concentrating on this post), I don't talk specifically about american cars. I'm not an american and I don't like americans or much about america itself. I like aussie muscle cars. I like australian designed and built stuff. I like australian women. When you try to tell me the american stuff is crap, I don't really care because you're not talking about that which I like.

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

    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 -->Great points!!<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. <!-- 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.


    <!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page