Comparison of the best ~2 liter N/A engines ever produced

[Turbowned]

No one's really mentioned Ford motors, Duratec? Zetec? Older Escort motors? I know little about them but I'm sure they deserve mention... What about the MX-5 2.0 liter? Or the Skyactiv engines?

How about the Nissan S20 used in the C10/C110 Skylines and Fairlady Z 432? 2.0 straight six, twin cams, 24 valves, triple carbs producing 160hp and 130lb/ft. Sounds like pure sex!

I feel like 1.6L engines are in another class but I wanted to give another vote for the 4A-GE blacktop; 165bhp out of a 20v 1.6L with factory ITB's and 11:1CR. Fun motor!

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by Turbowned

No one's really mentioned Ford motors, Duratec? Zetec? Older Escort motors? I know little about them but I'm sure they deserve mention... What about the MX-5 2.0 liter? Or the Skyactiv engines?

How about the Nissan S20 used in the C10/C110 Skylines and Fairlady Z 432? 2.0 straight six, twin cams, 24 valves, triple carbs producing 160hp and 130lb/ft. Sounds like pure sex!

I feel like 1.6L engines are in another class but I wanted to give another vote for the 4A-GE blacktop; 165bhp out of a 20v 1.6L with factory ITB's and 11:1CR. Fun motor!

Nobody has mentioned them because they're all inferior to Honda's engines.

And the reason that the newer Honda VTEC engines don't have that Jekyll & Hyde personality is thus:
-iVTEC engines include variable cam phasing, which smoothens out the switch from the small cam to the big cam
-None of Honda/Acura's V6 engines are DOHC, and thus are incapable of having a small and big cam. You cannot do it with SOHC, since each bank of cylinders only has one camshaft. If the VTEC system from the NSX's DOHC V6 was applied to Honda's modern V6 engines (assuming they were DOHC) they would be making a lot more than the 280-320 hp they currently produce.

[CSG Mike]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf

K20 and F20 all the way, I see those motors run strong year after year with people throwing boost at them, running them hard, etc...Honda knows how to make motors...now they just like making appliances (honda is now toyota from 6 years ago)

Simply put, Honda is a motor company that makes cars, not a car company that makes motors.

Honda motors go in everything from boats to planes and lawnmowers.


I long for the day someone will make a better factory 2.0 than the F20C.

[vangisback]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Nobody has mentioned them because they're all inferior to Honda's engines.

And the reason that the newer Honda VTEC engines don't have that Jekyll & Hyde personality is thus:
-iVTEC engines include variable cam phasing, which smoothens out the switch from the small cam to the big cam
-None of Honda/Acura's V6 engines are DOHC, and thus are incapable of having a small and big cam. You cannot do it with SOHC, since each bank of cylinders only has one camshaft. If the VTEC system from the NSX's DOHC V6 was applied to Honda's modern V6 engines (assuming they were DOHC) they would be making a lot more than the 280-320 hp they currently produce.

Being DOHC vs SOHC has no bearing on if the VTEC system can be utilized. In fact, the J-series is exclusively V6 SOHC VTEC. You might want to brush up on how the VTEC system works. It is not having dual cams that allows you to have high and low cam profiles, the high/low profiles are on the same cam shaft (intake side) but can be switched from one to the other in real-time, and that was the magic of it all.

[WolfpackS2k]

Originally Posted by vangisback

Being DOHC vs SOHC has no bearing on if the VTEC system can be utilized. In fact, the J-series is exclusively V6 SOHC VTEC. You might want to brush up on how the VTEC system works. It is not having dual cams that allows you to have high and low cam profiles, the high/low profiles are on the same cam shaft (intake side) but can be switched from one to the other in real-time, and that was the magic of it all.

Not really. On Honda's high performance VTEC engines the high/low profiles are on intake AND exhaust. They're not on the same camshaft. When you just have one camshaft your ability to adjust engine breathing is rather limited.

Maybe my wording wasn't clear before but I was not implying that you needed DOHC so you could have a low cam and a high cam. You can have VTEC at work on a SOHC engine, but it's a mild application due to lack of adjustability.

[vangisback]

Originally Posted by WolfpackS2k

Not really. On Honda's high performance VTEC engines the high/low profiles are on intake AND exhaust. They're not on the same camshaft. When you just have one camshaft your ability to adjust engine breathing is rather limited.

Maybe my wording wasn't clear before but I was not implying that you needed DOHC so you could have a low cam and a high cam. You can have VTEC at work on a SOHC engine, but it's a mild application due to lack of adjustability.

Agreed, i misunderstood your previous post. However, my understanding is that some J35 and most J37 engines have VTEC on both intake and exhaust whilst remaining SOHC. Anyway, my apologies for derailing this thread lol.

F20c 4-life!

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by vangisback

Agreed, i misunderstood your previous post. However, my understanding is that some J35 and most J37 engines have VTEC on both intake and exhaust whilst remaining SOHC. Anyway, my apologies for derailing this thread lol.

F20c 4-life!

You can certainly have multiple sets of both intake and exhaust cams on SOHC, but the problem with SOHC is that it's quite complicated to get the exhaust and intake lobes adjusting separately timing wise (phasing), so usually they don't. That's actually pretty significant, being able to advance the exhaust opening while retarding intake opening is how you cut overlap and thus make the engine run better at idle and such, and it's why variable lift systems are kind of rare: having just the ability to phase the cams already does a lot.

[regal]

Originally Posted by Hanni_0176

I feel the same way. I do not understand why so many people complain about the torque dip from 3k to 4k-ish. During normal daily driving, I shift at 3k and cruise at 2k, and the car has plenty enough power in the 2k-3k range. When I want to drive spiritedly (or when I start tracking the car), I keep the rpm's at or above the 4.5k rpm range, so I still don't notice the torque dip. The only time the torque dip really comes into play, for me, is when launching from a stop... and it only affects first gear.

I guess some people drive differently? Or simply think it's bad because it sounds bad and it looks bad on a dynograph?

Some people don't live in NE Ohio. When you live in a hilly area with sharp turns on declines and inclines the torque dip is obvious, I honestly don't see how anyone would miss it daily driving my commute.
I have one hill where the car literally stops accelerating at 4.2k in 3rd gear! That's the torque dip and no you don't need a dyno to notice it.

The saving grace is it sounds like its fixable with a tune and header.

I've yet to hear someone with a good tune and a good header ask for a return of the factory hole in the torque response.


The torque dip is severe because this is an NA engine developed for the next decade. The header and tune just put this engine on a level playing field with engines developed last decade. I think other auto makers realize the new and upcoming regulations/red tape are forcing them to DIT for performance, yes even Honda.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

You can certainly have multiple sets of both intake and exhaust cams on SOHC, but the problem with SOHC is that it's quite complicated to get the exhaust and intake lobes adjusting separately timing wise (phasing), so usually they don't. That's actually pretty significant, being able to advance the exhaust opening while retarding intake opening is how you cut overlap and thus make the engine run better at idle and such, and it's why variable lift systems are kind of rare: having just the ability to phase the cams already does a lot.

With different cam profiles for high and low rpm, you can easily have different phasing for the high-rpm lobes vs. the lower-rpm lobes with SOHC, no problem at all. Having different lobe profiles allows greatly increased lift and duration, which is a HUGE advantage, and something you can't do with just phasing. I would much rather have two sets of discrete lobe profiles for low-rpm and high-rpm operation with no variable phasing (low-rpm lobes with fixed timing optimized for low-rpm performance, high-rpm lobes with fixed timing optimized for high-rpm performance), than to have infinitely variable phasing and fixed lift/duration.

[chrisl]

Originally Posted by regal

Some people don't live in NE Ohio. When you live in a hilly area with sharp turns on declines and inclines the torque dip is obvious, I honestly don't see how anyone would miss it daily driving my commute.
I have one hill where the car literally stops accelerating at 4.2k in 3rd gear! That's the torque dip and no you don't need a dyno to notice it.

At 4.2k, you're making ~90hp, give or take. In 3rd gear, you have a gear ratio of 1.541:1 (in the transmission), which gives an overall (engine to wheel) ratio of 6.32:1. This means you're doing around 47mph. At this speed, it takes surprisingly little to overcome rolling resistance and drag (drag alone is less than 5 horsepower, as is rolling resistance), so you should be able to use something like 80hp of that 90 to actually accelerate the car (or, in this case, climb the hill). Putting down 80hp, at 47mph, you have about 640 pounds of force available at the rear wheels to push you forwards (after subtracting rolling resistance and drag). Assuming the car, you, a full tank of fuel, and whatever else you have in the car comes to about 3k pounds total, you would have to be going up a 12.3 degree incline to be not accelerating at all (and to have all of the power going to maintaining speed up the incline). That's a 21.8% grade, more than triple the maximum allowed by interstate highway standards. It's possible that some smaller roads exceed interstate highway standards, but I would seriously doubt that any road you would be traveling on at 47mph has a 21% grade for any length of time. Besides, if you really have to accelerate that much, why not downshift (or hold it in second longer)? That same speed should only be about 6krpm in 2nd, so you definitely still have some room before redline...

[Hanni_0176]

Originally Posted by regal

Some people don't live in NE Ohio. When you live in a hilly area with sharp turns on declines and inclines the torque dip is obvious, I honestly don't see how anyone would miss it daily driving my commute.
I have one hill where the car literally stops accelerating at 4.2k in 3rd gear! That's the torque dip and no you don't need a dyno to notice it.

The saving grace is it sounds like its fixable with a tune and header.

I've yet to hear someone with a good tune and a good header ask for a return of the factory hole in the torque response.


The torque dip is severe because this is an NA engine developed for the next decade. The header and tune just put this engine on a level playing field with engines developed last decade. I think other auto makers realize the new and upcoming regulations/red tape are forcing them to DIT for performance, yes even Honda.

Just because I'm in Northeast Ohio, doesn't mean there aren't some roads around here with hills.

I do see what you are getting at though, since most of my commute is flat. Still, why not start off in 2nd gear during that hill climb if it's that steep? Redlining in 2nd doesn't drop you down to 4.2k in 3rd...

And I'm not advocating that the torque dip is a good thing, I was simply saying that I see people making such a big deal out of it all over the place on these forums, and that I don't think it's nearly as bad as it's made out to be.

In terms of headers and a tune... well, I will definitely be modding my car in the future, and those two are just a few on a long list of stuff I want to do.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by ZDan

With different cam profiles for high and low rpm, you can easily have different phasing for the high-rpm lobes vs. the lower-rpm lobes with SOHC, no problem at all. Having different lobe profiles allows greatly increased lift and duration, which is a HUGE advantage, and something you can't do with just phasing. I would much rather have two sets of discrete lobe profiles for low-rpm and high-rpm operation with no variable phasing (low-rpm lobes with fixed timing optimized for low-rpm performance, high-rpm lobes with fixed timing optimized for high-rpm performance), than to have infinitely variable phasing and fixed lift/duration.

Definitely, having 2 profiles that can't move is better than having 1 profile that can be shifted around a little on a performance motor since at the end of the day duration is duration, lift is lift and there's only so much you can mask by opening valves a little later, but phasing systems are quite good at extracting efficiency and torque over a good chunk of the rev range and at low load in particular. Now you can then throw on a third low-load only profile, and then 2 max power profiles, like Honda has on a few engines, and really embarass a typical VVT system.

[chulooz]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Definitely, having 2 profiles that can't move is better than having 1 profile that can be shifted around a little on a performance motor since at the end of the day duration is duration, lift is lift and there's only so much you can mask by opening valves a little later, but phasing systems are quite good at extracting efficiency and torque over a good chunk of the rev range and at low load in particular. Now you can then throw on a third low-load only profile, and then 2 max power profiles, like Honda has on a few engines, and really embarass a typical VVT system.

Screw cams, check out what these boys at koensnigsegddfsdkoxsf are up to (eye candy for the first minute):


[ame]http://youtu.be/Bch5B23_pu0[/ame]

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by chulooz

Screw cams, check out what these boys at koensnigsegddfsdkoxsf are up to (eye candy for the first minute):

Couple issues:
1. Computer screws up, smashes valve into the piston = bent valves. No cam profile can possibly do that.

2. All the kinetic energy you give the spring is lost, whereas with cams you get most of it back. This is quite a lot since you still have to open valves at part load.