Mini NSX

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

For a mid-upper tier sports car Honda should be looking into either something like a new F20C or a 2-2.5L V6 that revs just as high. If the lowly Civic can get an 8000rpm capable K20, they should be able to do this. All they need to do is bring together the best of the engines they've made before: 3 stage VTEC, high compression ratio, the new direct injection systems, new variable speed oil and water pump, shortish stroke in the 80-85mm range + nice long forged rods, and it'll have silly power, great sound (NSX revving up = pure race car), great fuel economy. And torque is for old people driving Mercedes Benz, gtfo.

I would even argue that a small displacement (2.5l-3.5l) V8 would do the trick. The key is to keep the stroke of an engine at a relatively low level. Back in the 60's, Ford created the Windsor 302 (102mm bore and 76.2mm stroke). The thing was a beauty, and I'm surprised that they replaced it with the Modular V8 lineup. Those engines could create 400+ NA horsepower easily and could sit at 6,000rpm all day long. If Honda can create a similar, yet smaller, powerplant for this car, they should be fine.

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." Enzo Ferrari

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

I would even argue that a small displacement (2.5l-3.5l) V8 would do the trick. The key is to keep the stroke of an engine at a relatively low level. Back in the 60's, Ford created the Windsor 302 (102mm bore and 76.2mm stroke). The thing was a beauty, and I'm surprised that they replaced it with the Modular V8 lineup. Those engines could create 400+ NA horsepower easily and could sit at 6,000rpm all day long. If Honda can create a similar, yet smaller, powerplant for this car, they should be fine.

"Horsepower sells cars, torque wins races." Enzo Ferrari

But Honda has never made a V8

Right, short stroke is the key, although it doesn't have to be that short. The F20C had an 84mm stroke, 90mm bore. The 2ZZ-GE was 85mm stroke, 82mm bore. If Honda does a square 81mm V6, that would land them at 2.34L displacement. The F20C lost a lot of torque above its power peak, I'm guessing because the stroke was pushing the mean piston speeds to the limit, so with 81mm stroke it could make slightly better power over 8000rpm. With direct injection, 3 stage vtec, 12.5-13.0 compression ratio, Honda should be able to get 290hp out of such a monster. Their new multiple speed oil and water pumps (long overdue in the automotive world really) should gain back the horses lost to emissions equipment.

In an ultralight car, it could definitely be competitive, if they can maintain original NSX weight it'll be almost as fast as a Cayman S. If they can't drop the curb weight down, there's always the option of increasing the bore a bit to get more power. I'm just describing my dream car toned down a little (I'd prefer even smaller displacement and lighter, sorta like my current car except 4 pots aren't as cool)

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

But Honda has never made a V8

Right, short stroke is the key, although it doesn't have to be that short. The F20C had an 84mm stroke, 90mm bore. The 2ZZ-GE was 85mm stroke, 82mm bore. If Honda does a square 81mm V6, that would land them at 2.34L displacement. The F20C lost a lot of torque above its power peak, I'm guessing because the stroke was pushing the mean piston speeds to the limit, so with 81mm stroke it could make slightly better power over 8000rpm. With direct injection, 3 stage vtec, 12.5-13.0 compression ratio, Honda should be able to get 290hp out of such a monster. Their new multiple speed oil and water pumps (long overdue in the automotive world really) should gain back the horses lost to emissions equipment.

In an ultralight car, it could definitely be competitive, if they can maintain original NSX weight it'll be almost as fast as a Cayman S. If they can't drop the curb weight down, there's always the option of increasing the bore a bit to get more power. I'm just describing my dream car

I know, and it's incredibly disappointing.

The description is spot-on (as far as V6 ideas go). I would expand on your idea and urge Honda to borrow some from Ford's Ecoboost division. I small twin-turbo setup will really pump out the horsepower, keep torque in the respectable range throughout the power curve, and allow for some epic gas mileage.

From the sounds of it, you are proposing some great ideas.

[serialk11r]

Boost is definitely a good idea, I just wonder what Honda is thinking because they are very reluctant to use boost. Toyota is similar but they at least have special editions of cars with superchargers and stuff. I suppose it does cost more money to boost an engine. Boost allows a "dual efficiency band" so the gears can be longer for the street.

Maybe they'll give us a pleasant surprise with a variable drive supercharger

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Of course there's room, but that's not the point. The point is that a big heavy low rev engine is not exciting, and a sports car needs to be exciting to make up for the "lack of value". The J35 has a 93mm stroke, so it's not going to be much good above 7000rpm no matter what you do to it.

The VQ37VHR is not just a VQ35DE in a higher state of tune. It's newer (newer combustion chamber design), has VVEL (huge benefit), and has higher compression ratio and higher displacement. Take those into account and you realize the VQ37 isn't all that tuned up.

For a mid-upper tier sports car Honda should be looking into either something like a new F20C or a 2-2.5L V6 that revs just as high. If the lowly Civic can get an 8000rpm capable K20, they should be able to do this. All they need to do is bring together the best of the engines they've made before: 3 stage VTEC, high compression ratio, the new direct injection systems, new variable speed oil and water pump, shortish stroke in the 80-85mm range + nice long forged rods, and it'll have silly power, great sound (NSX revving up = pure race car), great fuel economy. And torque is for old people driving Mercedes Benz, gtfo.

I have to seriously disagree with you on this one. You probably enjoy revving to 6-8k rpms at every stoplight but not everybody likes that crap. I love a "flexible" engine and I love how the VQ37VHR makes great power in the low-mid-high rpm powerband. Show me a 4 banger N/A that can achieve all of that? NONE!!!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by SUB-FT86

I have to seriously disagree with you on this one. You probably enjoy revving to 6-8k rpms at every stoplight but not everybody likes that crap. I love a "flexible" engine and I love how the VQ37VHR makes great power in the low-mid-high rpm powerband. Show me a 4 banger N/A that can achieve all of that? NONE!!!

Nah dude, my engine is off at the stoplights :P I rev to 3.5k, and my engine only hits 6700rpm. It's a turd.

I understand what you mean though. I do think the VQ37VHR is a great engine for what it is, it's got a great powerband thanks to the VVEL, and more manufacturers need to get off their asses and work harder. However I think that chasing torque via high displacement is for trucks and SUVs and vans, not sports cars. When Nissan makes a VQ25VHR with VVEL let me know.

My car turns 3600rpm at 65mph, so I understand why "passing power" is appealing. It's sometimes nice to just mash the throttle and go, and never shift on the highway. Maybe the novelty hasn't worn off yet, but I've been driving it for about 3 months and I still feel that shifting gears is an important part of the driving experience. You can never have enough torque, there is always less power in top gear than the next gear down. Some of the older 4 bangers like the 4ag, 3s, etc. have crappy powerbands, but 2ZZs and K20s and F20Cs with lift have great specific torque everywhere, how much power you have is dictated by how many gears you drop down.

On a torquey engine that loses a huge chunk of its torque by redline, your power output increases more slowly with the revs because the torque drops. Where's the fun in that?

EDIT: I will concede that boost for torque is a good thing, because you can only put so many gears into the car, and boost essentially gives you an extra set of gears. But gigantic displacement naturally aspirated engines that make low specific power by virtue of lack of technological features are sin.

By the way, 2.4L is not even that bad for torque, a base Cayman is only 2.65L or something. I understand that 2L in a 26-2700lb car might be a little anemic if you're not winding it out, but 2.4L is not that bad in a light car.

[RRnold]

Honda did make a V8 a long time ago.

I honestly believe Honda can make a much better (fun sports) car to the likes of the GTR and even the LFA but don't seem too motivated.



http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=319284

[Wes B.]

Originally Posted by RRnold

Honda did make a V8 a long time ago.

I honestly believe Honda can make a much better (fun sports) car to the likes of the GTR and even the LFA but don't seem too motivated.



http://www.mulsannescorner.com/mugenv8.html

http://www.vtec.net/news/news-item?news_item_id=319284

They may have made a V8, but it didn't make it in to any of their automobiles. Fail!

[muffinman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Of course there's room, but that's not the point. The point is that a big heavy low rev engine is not exciting, and a sports car needs to be exciting to make up for the "lack of value". The J35 has a 93mm stroke, so it's not going to be much good above 7000rpm no matter what you do to it.

i shoudve been a little clearer in that i was refering to the time when the VQ35DE was put in altimas and 350z's (along with a handful of other models) in the same years but they had different hp ratings. my point is that if honda decides to make this car, it will share a motor with something. a newly designed v8 is a pipe dream, as is a low displacement v6 because it wouldnt have much else to go into. j35 turned sideways, dropped into a little coupe and tuned to 300hp+ would be tits imho

http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2986167

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by muffinman

i shoudve been a little clearer in that i was refering to the time when the VQ35DE was put in altimas and 350z's (along with a handful of other models) in the same years but they had different hp ratings. my point is that if honda decides to make this car, it will share a motor with something. a newly designed v8 is a pipe dream, as is a low displacement v6 because it wouldnt have much else to go into. j35 turned sideways, dropped into a little coupe and tuned to 300hp+ would be tits imho

http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2986167

And that's where our opinions differ. If it's going to cost north of 40k, it better have a spiced up motor. At 35k or something if they want to build a Z competitor with a J35, okay... but it's still a minivan motor at the end of the day. Like I said, 93mm stroke is pretty hopeless.

At these price levels, I think most people want to buy something special with emotional appeal, and wouldn't mind paying more for that. Affordable is already out of the question. Why buy a Honda with a J35 when you can get a Porsche Cayman that happily hits 8000rpm? (okay the new Cayman hasn't been announced yet but the new Boxster does 7800rpm) And why buy a Honda with a J35 at 30k when there's a 370Z with pretty much exactly the same specs at that price point already? The VQ37 is more rev happy than the J35 can hope to be anyways.

Honda has done some crazy stuff before. F20C and C30A/C32B were very limited run engines, and the cars they came in commanded a premium for that. Better to charge more for something different than make something that is essentially a copy of a competitor.

If Hyundai can spit out new engines every year, I think Honda or Toyota can spare the cash to do a couple of new engines, but my anti-profit-maximization thinking would get me shot if I worked for them :P

[raul]

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

I think I'd have a VERY hard time spending upwards of $50,000 on a Honda... just sayin.

Just how people are having trouble spending $90k on a Nissan. You're not in the right audience.

[SUB-FT86]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

And that's where our opinions differ. If it's going to cost north of 40k, it better have a spiced up motor. At 35k or something if they want to build a Z competitor with a J35, okay... but it's still a minivan motor at the end of the day. Like I said, 93mm stroke is pretty hopeless.

At these price levels, I think most people want to buy something special with emotional appeal, and wouldn't mind paying more for that. Affordable is already out of the question. Why buy a Honda with a J35 when you can get a Porsche Cayman that happily hits 8000rpm? (okay the new Cayman hasn't been announced yet but the new Boxster does 7800rpm) And why buy a Honda with a J35 at 30k when there's a 370Z with pretty much exactly the same specs at that price point already? The VQ37 is more rev happy than the J35 can hope to be anyways.

Honda has done some crazy stuff before. F20C and C30A/C32B were very limited run engines, and the cars they came in commanded a premium for that. Better to charge more for something different than make something that is essentially a copy of a competitor.

If Hyundai can spit out new engines every year, I think Honda or Toyota can spare the cash to do a couple of new engines, but my anti-profit-maximization thinking would get me shot if I worked for them :P

I can attest to this. I'm amazed at how fast the 7spd auto shifts in the 370Z. The BRZ automatic looks slower while revving than the Z automatic. I wonder if its because of the aggressively geared ratios.

[muffinman]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

If Hyundai can spit out new engines every year, I think Honda or Toyota can spare the cash to do a couple of new engines, but my anti-profit-maximization thinking would get me shot if I worked for them :P

haha this^ . for example, very similar versions of Kia's/hyundai's lambda 3.8 v6 were/are thrown into about 10 different vehicles so it wasnt a small production run. i think they used the same block with the same stroke in their 3.5 lambda (with a smaller bore obviously) so there is potential for lots of the same parts to be made

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by Wes B.

Don't like the looks.

I disagree. I like it. I'm assuming that the production version would be toned down a bit. For example, it would probably lose a little if its wide hips there in the back.

Originally Posted by SVTSHC

I think I'd have a VERY hard time spending upwards of $50,000 on a Honda... just sayin.

Yea, me too, unless it was the new HondaJet. Still I'm guessing it would be a quality build, and to put it in prospective that's about the price of two new Goldwings, so Honda does like to put a premium on things.

Originally Posted by Dark

It will be an Acura.

Yea, 'cause that makes all the difference. Surprised its not $75K with an Acura tag on it.