|
|
|
|
 |
| Thread Page - [1] 2 3 4 5 6 |
|
|
owequitit
 |
|
http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2012/05/spy-photos-2014-porsche-918-coupe-caught-testing.html
So Porsche can manage to put a 9200RPM 562HP V8 in this car, and still get it to meet emissions requirements (in a hybrid no less), but Honda couldn't do it with a DOHC VTEC engine that just needed EGR and a couple of other minor tweaks? A true example of just how far Honda has truely fallen...
Invalid Honda fanboy arguments:
1) "Porsche doesn't have to meet the same CAFE standard." This is bogus because with Porsche now being lumped in with VW and Audi, it has to contribute to VW's overall CAFE score since VW is considered a "volume" automaker. Regardless of CAFE exemption, every single motor vehicle sold in the US MUST meet all applicable Federal emissions standards. Most will meet the California standards as well, as they would preclude sales in several states if they did not.
2) "High revving engines can't meet emmissions standards." It certainly appears that they can. Not only have Porsche and Ferrari done it (and Ferrari is about to do it again with the F12), but Ford and GM have also done it recently with the Mustang Boss 302 and the Z06 (which is expected to continue with the C7 generation). All of these cars must meet the upcoming emmissions standards for the remainder of their lifespan, so surely if they can do it, the engineering powerhouse that is Honda SHOULD be able to do it. Lamborghini and Audi have also done it recently, or are still doing it.
3) NA engines can't meet emissions standards. See the above car list for total invalidation of said argument.
4) "NA engines cost too much." While that may be true in the case of the exotics, they have ALWAYS been overpriced relative to their performance. The simple fact remains that Honda could have several high-winding, low cost, reliable NA engines based on CURRENT basic engine architecture with very few modifications in the interest of "emissions."
5) "Only 'boy racers' want high winding engines." Yet, as Honda has abandoned this principle, they have watched their perceived technological leadership, their value and in many cases their sales leadership erode. They have certainly seen the willingness to pay full sticker for their product erode. Not to mention that cars like the Boss 302, Z06, 911, Aventador, R18, R8, 458, F12, etc will ALL sell to the most affluent and decidedly non-"boy racer" enthusiasts around.
You guys have run yourself out of rope...because not only are there high-winding NA options on the market currently, but it clearly appears that there are more coming. Considering we are approaching 2013, and the average lifespan of a product like these is 5-10 years, the excuses about looming standards just doesn't cut it anymore. Of course, most of us already knew it wouldn't, you just needed time to paint yourselves into a corner.
|
P54
|
|
Why is it so hard to understand that the engines that Honda took out was 10-20 year old designs. They did not want to update the old designs to current standards, instead make new engines that will last into the future. Honda have no trouble making a 10K rpm engine to pass emission, they make street legal 15K rpm M/C. Instead of spending money on old designs they are working on new designs that will last longer than an updated one. Also remember that when Honda pulled the NSX a new one was in the works, a high revving V10 that would have passed emission. Circumstances outside of Honda's control killed it, had Honda known it they might have updated the old NSX, however as the new one was being readied they just killed it.
Now what will you buy, the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K. Maybe the new NSX with hundreds of less HP and with a price you can afford will actually outperform the Porsche on the track? What will you say then?
|
THX17201
|
|
P54 wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the engines that Honda took out was 10-20 year old designs. They did not want to update the old designs to current standards, instead make new engines that will last into the future.
|
Why is it so hard to understand that Honda could make new engines that can rev to 8,000 if they wanted to? They have CHOSEN to not do that...
|
DCR
|
|
There was no money in it.
The people they've got who are writing the checks didn't see the point in the singular application it remained in, and using the lamest published excuse they could find as a "reason" (needs moar tork), they delivered you a parts bin TSX engine with a new letter tossed in to make it unique to the Si. From a corporate standpoint? That is a win-win. The problem is...no one swallowed it this time, including the media.
As time has gone on, the high-revving nature of Honda has become the exception, and not the rule. At least when those engines were around, people had something to talk about.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the engines that Honda took out was 10-20 year old designs. They did not want to update the old designs to current standards, instead make new engines that will last into the future. Honda have no trouble making a 10K rpm engine to pass emission, they make street legal 15K rpm M/C. Instead of spending money on old designs they are working on new designs that will last longer than an updated one. Also remember that when Honda pulled the NSX a new one was in the works, a high revving V10 that would have passed emission. Circumstances outside of Honda's control killed it, had Honda known it they might have updated the old NSX, however as the new one was being readied they just killed it.
Now what will you buy, the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K. Maybe the new NSX with hundreds of less HP and with a price you can afford will actually outperform the Porsche on the track? What will you say then?
|
Why is it so hard to understand that "new" and "high-revving" are NOT mutually exclusive? Refer again to the list provided to see many examples of "new" AND "high-revving." No matter which way you cut it, every one of those engines is high revving (even the 427 Cubic Inch displacement -or- 7000cc) Z06 redlines at 7K RPM (just 100RPM short of the Civic Si).
The fact remains that we are stuck with the k24 in the Civic Si for the next 5 years anyway, so what justification do you have insinuating "new" when we won't get a "new" enthusiast engine anyway? For that purpose Honda would have been better served putting EGR on the K20Z3, putting an F22C crank in there, and calling it a day. Not only would we have more power, more revs and nearly equal torque, but it would have maintained Honda's reputation as a serious car builder.
I have no problem with "new." You are simply erecting a strawman argument with that one. The point is that there is no reason "new" has to mean low-revving, low output, shitty drivetrains.
And FYI, most of the "new" engines Honda is getting ready to release are based roughly on existing engines anyway. They aren't even all "new." That further weakens your point.
|
owequitit
|
|
P54 wrote:
Why is it so hard to understand that the engines that Honda took out was 10-20 year old designs. They did not want to update the old designs to current standards, instead make new engines that will last into the future. Honda have no trouble making a 10K rpm engine to pass emission, they make street legal 15K rpm M/C. Instead of spending money on old designs they are working on new designs that will last longer than an updated one. Also remember that when Honda pulled the NSX a new one was in the works, a high revving V10 that would have passed emission. Circumstances outside of Honda's control killed it, had Honda known it they might have updated the old NSX, however as the new one was being readied they just killed it.
Now what will you buy, the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K. Maybe the new NSX with hundreds of less HP and with a price you can afford will actually outperform the Porsche on the track? What will you say then?
|
P.S. Unless the NSX is packing well north of 500HP, there is ZERO chance it is going to outrun the 760HP/570 lb-ft Porsche R18. It sure as hell isn't going to be faster than the Ferrari F12, and will most likely be slower than the 458 Italia.
For reference, in order to even MATCH the power to weight ratio of the 918, the NSX is going to have to best 5:1. That would put the required output at nearly 650HP (assuming Honda can get the NSX to weight 3300lbs, which is unlikely). With Porsche targeting a 0-60 under 3 seconds, a 0-125 in less than 9 and 0-186 in less than 27, as well as a Nurburgring target of 7:22, I think it is quite unlikely that the NSX will even come close to matching it. By all means, if they did, I would be impressed, but with the required output, it just isn't likely.
|
DrWhiner
|
|
owequitit wrote:
... No matter which way you cut it, every one of those engines is high revving (even the 427 Cubic Inch displacement -or- 7000cc) Z06 redlines at 7K RPM (just 100RPM short of the Civic Si).
|
Does it make sense?
P.S. Is the 427 engine a model of "high-revving" engine that enthusiasts look for?
505 hp / 7.0 L * 2.354 = ? [Answer: < 170 hp]
I understand perfectly well the larger displacement engine has to deal with things like more friction, but still ....
|
DrWhiner
|
|
P54 wrote:
... the new NSX for $100+K or the Porsche for $900K....
|
So, if the NSX-2 is beaten by the Porsche that costs 5 to 9 times more, then Honda is finished??
It is starting to get ridiculous.
What's next?
A comparison test between Civic Si and R8 4.2??
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
Can't believe your comparing Honda to Porsche. You have way to much respect, pride, trust, faith, belief or whatever in Honda. I dunno what it is...
but you have too much of it...in Honda.
You want high reving then get a porsche or ferrari you gotta pay to play. Or you could wait 10-40 years for the S3000 to celebrate Honda's history and get another 9000rpm s2k type car. Or just get an s2000 now.
|
owequitit
|
|
DrWhiner wrote:
owequitit wrote:
... No matter which way you cut it, every one of those engines is high revving (even the 427 Cubic Inch displacement -or- 7000cc) Z06 redlines at 7K RPM (just 100RPM short of the Civic Si).
|
Does it make sense?
P.S. Is the 427 engine a model of "high-revving" engine that enthusiasts look for?
505 hp / 7.0 L * 2.354 = ? [Answer: < 170 hp]
I understand perfectly well the larger displacement engine has to deal with things like more friction, but still ....
|
Seriously? This is the approach you are going to take?
Yes, for a 7000CC (3.5 times the K20's displacement, and nearly 3 times the displacement of the K24) OHV V8, 7K is screaming. To get an OHV engine to not only rev that high with the kinds of reciprocating masses involved, but to get it actually make power up there is nothing short of impressive. Of course, that neglects the 4.5L V8 in the Ferrari 458 which revs to 9000+ RPM while being twice the size of the K24, the 6300 CC V12 in the F12 that revs to ~8500RPM. How about the 4.2L in the R8 that revs to 8250, or the 5.2L V10 that pulls out just under 9K? Shall we talk about the Aventador, or can you see that the LS7 was merely the lowest common denominator?
To put it in perspective, the F20C revved to 9,000RPM 12 years ago, and beat the specific output of all but the Ferrari 458 currently. It took Ferrari 10 years and about 10x the cost to equal what Honda did over a decade ago for $30K and with less complexity. Now they are still doing it, but Honda isn't. Lamborghini is doing it, but Honda isn't. Audi and GM are doing it, but Honda isn't. Too expensive? The Subaru BRZ is revving to 7500 and Honda isn't. Starting price is a fraction above the Si, and you get lots of extra stuff. Ford is also doing it with a reasonable price tag at 7500RPM for roughly $40K entry price... In short, Honda is taking a bath in a niche they used to absolutely conquer.
Specific output of 120hp/l is silly right? Well it is until you consider that your precious K24 would be making 288HP with that specific output. If it matched the specific torque output of the F20C it would be pumping out 187-192 lb-ft. Which one is torqueless now? And with VTC that K24 would actually have a superior powerband (larger % of peak torque over a larger RPM range). Even with "only" 100hp/l, that K24 would STILL make 240HP. Also worth noting is the fact that the K20 actually made about the same torque/displacement as the K24 per unit of displacement, but did it over a much broader range (the head on the K20Z3 is superior, period).
And no, compared to the 7.5K, 8K, 8.5K, and 9K redlines that have been commonplace among Honda's enthusiast engines, 7.1K is nowhere near impressive. Hell, Honda's biggest displacement, SOHC non-performance optimized V6 redlines at 6800. In fact, Honda was doing nearly 7100 in pedestrian non-VTEC engines over 20 years ago. Not only are the revs not impressive, but the specific output is not impressive, nor is the shape of the power curve to be quite frank. It is even more pathetic when GM can get an engine 3 times the size to rev and make power just as high. They are trumped by Ford too. While Honda used to put out engines that were on par technologically with Ferrari, that is clearly no longer the case, with them struggling to maintain an advantage over basic engine makers like Kia. I also note that they did that in cars that were also based on pedestrian economy cars, so it isn't like they were hard to obtain or own as you guys repeatedly try to make it sound. You know, cars like the 6th and 8th gen Si? How about the Prelude VTEC, the Integra GS-R, Integra Type R, RSX Type S, Civic Type R, NSX, Civic SIR-t; all of which were available for well less than 30K? Basically any car that actually positively contributed to Honda's enthusiast position and perceived engineering prowess.
The reality is that Honda is being sucked dry by bean counters and ignorant excuses.
You guys with your rationalized excuses are getting pretty funny to be honest. The cost issue has been debunked (it was debunked 20 years ago when VTEC debuted). The emissions excuses have been debunked (if other companies can do it, then Honda can do it). The CAFE excuses have been debunked (not all of the "high revving" engines are exclusive to boutique hypercars). The MPG excuses have been debunked (cars like the Z06 can return 30MPG HWY while making OVER 500HP). You guys have absolutely NOTHING left to stand on, except cheap. Sadly, while Honda's new way might be cheaper on the front end (to the tune of a couple hundred $$ per car), they are having to put 2-3x that much cash on the hood in incentives. What that means to the laymen who don't get it is that it is costing Honda MORE money to be cheap.
|
Grace141
|
|
Owe, in the discussion thread in which you compared the Civic Si to a Ferrari I mentioned the idea of a level playing field.
- The 2016 CAFE requirements are calculated for each manufacturer based on a number of variables such as the types of car offered, the size of the cars, the wheelbase of the cars. The list is lengthy. I know it is fact that BMW received several exemptions for their cars because they were determined to be a niche manufacturer. I don't know about Porsche.
- The CARB ratings are specific about emissions from individual cars but no one here ever talks about the manufacturer ratings doled out by our friends in California more or less requiring each manufacturer to sell a given percentage of P-ZEV cars in its product mix with, again, total numbers of cars sold taking into account. This requirement has changed over the years but the last I read it was still in place.
- Economies of scale always come into play.
- I don' recall Porsche making a bold CO2 reduction commitment of any kind. Maybe they have and I just haven't read of it. We can agree this is a questionable (or silly) move by Honda but they didn't ask for my opinion. Honda's CO2 reduction goals go beyond the CARB requirements in scale because they are targeting a specific pollutant and not just an overall mix.
The question Honda should ask Porsche is how they will downscale this technology into a $22k US sedan and coupe which will sell in an unknown quantity. It won't be an Audi, for certain, so we'll see a $22k GTi/GLi with a 9k redline? Better still, a Jetta which won't fall apart within the first 150k miles. Has anyone here bought a new Jetta and put 150k miles on it?
The question we should be asking Honda is why not offer a high-er revving engine for the Si. Has anyone here with the access thought to do that? Has anyone inside Honda actually said "yeah, this is a lot cheaper"? Can anyone here who builds these motors or who works in the manufacturing sector say how many US dollars cheaper it is to build the K24 TSX motor than a separate K20 Si motor?
|
Mechanic
|
|
owequitit wrote: . . . The reality is that Honda is being sucked dry by bean counters and ignorant excuses. . . .
|
owequitit, first, I don't accept your premise. But, setting that aside for the sake of discussion, I think you are grossly underestimating what the "bean counters" are saving HMC by being "cheap."
You estimated that Honda is saving only approximately $200 per vehicle by being "cheap," and that this is costing the company thousands more in incentives to move the metal.
I don't know where you're getting your numbers. However, even assuming your assumptions were correct, the company is making decent $ these days. In fact, only Porsche nets more per vehicle. And that's pretty much how you keep score in the automobile manufacturing business. You may not like it or the company's products, but cheap is working for the shareholders.
Clearly, you're unhappy. You can continue to live in frustration, raising hell about what Honda isn't, but -- as should be obvious by now -- Honda clearly is no longer "your" motor company, and that's not likely to change.
|
CR-V9
|
|
owe, owe, owe ..... owe.
I'm not defending Honda. I sound like it but not. It just sounds like it. It's all in your head.
They said, according to Wong and other medias, High revv is out. They can't meet the emission regulations, specially ULEV. If you were talking about if it were techniclly possible or not, many things are possible. But this is not "pimp my ride" cars Honda is talking about, Porsche maybe. The engines have to be production engines, not hand assembled ones. More hand faburications involved, higher the price. Labor costs money. Everybody has to make a living.
I can't see how Honda could make the Si engine a high-rev production engine and keep its price the same. If they do that with Acura and price it accordingly, maybe.
Thus my suggesions, move the high rev engine to Acura and price it accordingly and other luxury stuff, too, and price them accordingly. Which would really set Acura apart from Honda. If you have the money to afford an Acura you should be able to buy a high rev engine in the NSX and the ILX-s, just like from Porsche and Ferrari. And price them high so that not many people can buy it and you'd not have to be in the same room with people like me. Trust me, I wouldn't want to be in the same room with me if I had the money.
By the way, Porsche is not making money on 911s but making money from their SUVs.
|
CR-V9
|
|
Now, I really like my own suggesion.
See, to set yourself apart from others and be special you'd have to have something special not many other can have.
High-rev engine is very difficult to produce in today's emission regulation envernment. Only few, like porsche, Ferrari can produce F1 like high-rev engines. So what Acura has to do is to make their engines high-rev, just in real sporty ones like the new NSX, TLX-typeS etc and price them accordingly. And high-rev engine is Honda's legacy. It all fits perfectly. It, high-rev engines, sets Acura apart away from Honda and other brands who really can't do high-revs.
|
Mechanic
|
|
CR-V9 wrote: . . . .
By the way, Porsche is not making money on 911s but making money from their SUVs.
|
Actually, Porsche hasn't lost a dime on 997s (or Boxsters or Caymans) in years. They just can't make enough money from the sale of 997s (now 991s) to fund future development, racing, etc. You are correct, however, that Porsche makes a ton -- four times as much -- on the "trucks" based, incredibly enough, on the number of the vile things sold.
|
Powered by Honda
|
|
Mechanic wrote:
CR-V9 wrote: . . . .
By the way, Porsche is not making money on 911s but making money from their SUVs.
|
Actually, Porsche hasn't lost a dime on 997s (or Boxsters or Caymans) in years. They just can't make enough money from the sale of 997s (now 991s) to fund future development, racing, etc. You are correct, however, that Porsche makes a ton -- four times as much -- on the "trucks" based, incredibly enough, on the number of the vile things sold.
|
How is porsche losing money on 911? I wanna read about this. Like a 911 turbo is almost 200,000 here in Canada...how are they not making a profit on that.
|
WongKN
|
|
I can see the logic on both sides of the argument. And I can see that this argument will likely continue on and never end.
But at the end of the day, I think what is more important is for each individual to take a hard look at himself/herself and his/her expectations from Honda. Given that Honda has pretty much clarified the direction they are going for, I think what is left really is make a decision. To continue complaining is not going to do much good.
The only things coming out from Honda that is remotely near what some of us yearns for is probably only the NSX-2. I have even started to give up hope on ever seeing the 'promised' higher performance CR-Z. And this time, it is the LPL himself, the guy IN CHARGE of the CR-Z, whom 'promised' me and Honda enthusiasts.
To cut it short, I think people should make a decision to either stay - and accept what Honda has decided to do - or move on. We can even have the best of both worlds too. Get a high revving engine from those manufacturers who still wants to make it (looks like pretty much all other major manufacturers except Honda at this point, sad to say), like the Toyota 86 for e.g., and perhaps still support the company we like, by getting one of their mainstream models. Those are still pretty good, as long as we don't expect too much sportiness out of it.
|
CR-V9
|
|
What are you talking about, Wong? What do you mean "every other company", T86? Which company has high-revv engines except $600,000 cars? T86 is 7,000rpm which is the same as 2013 Si's or TSX's 2.4l.
Even Porsche is 5,500 ~ 7,400rpms for $200,000s. What the F...
As for the eNSX, it's all up to how much AHM is allowed to do. Remember it will still be a world car so it will have to meet not only the US regulation but also Euro6, China and JP's regulations. How far above 7,000 will they, can they go?
|
CR-V9
|
|
Powered by Honda wrote:
Mechanic wrote:
CR-V9 wrote: . . . .
By the way, Porsche is not making money on 911s but making money from their SUVs.
|
Actually, Porsche hasn't lost a dime on 997s (or Boxsters or Caymans) in years. They just can't make enough money from the sale of 997s (now 991s) to fund future development, racing, etc. You are correct, however, that Porsche makes a ton -- four times as much -- on the "trucks" based, incredibly enough, on the number of the vile things sold.
|
How is porsche losing money on 911? I wanna read about this. Like a 911 turbo is almost 200,000 here in Canada...how are they not making a profit on that.
|
I think their main problem is they have too many models from Ss to Turbos to Rs... $200,000 a piece but they still have to sell some, enough to be able to develop next FMCs and to race on some weekends.
|
rev2damoon
|
|
Honda may be saving and making money by letting the bean-counters take charge, but it is coming at a price. Those qualities which helped spark the creation of this very website are all but gone from the Honda we see before us today. That tachometer integrated into the TOV logo means something...It actually _meant_ something. What does it mean today? Honda may indeed be better off financially becoming a more efficient "appliance maker", but let's not delude ourselves into thinking the cars are just as exciting as they've been in the past.
Honda's current halo performance model here in the US is a "watered down from the previous generation" Civic Si...Or maybe it's the V6 Accord? Doesn't really matter. The price Honda pays for trying to become a better Toyota is it's soul. It is being sucked dry. Enthusiasts can and will move on, but it is important that Honda "knows" that they're losing this crowd and "why" they're losing it. The scarier version is that they already know they're soul is gone along with the enthusiast crowd, but they're continuing down that path anyway. Maybe they think their past is just an "illusion" created by the media. If that's the case, then they're horribly, horribly misguided.
|
TonyEX
|
|
WongKN wrote:
I can see the logic on both sides of the argument. And I can see that this argument will likely continue on and never end.
But at the end of the day, I think what is more important is for each individual to take a hard look at himself/herself and his/her expectations from Honda. Given that Honda has pretty much clarified the direction they are going for, I think what is left really is make a decision. To continue complaining is not going to do much good.
The only things coming out from Honda that is remotely near what some of us yearns for is probably only the NSX-2. I have even started to give up hope on ever seeing the 'promised' higher performance CR-Z. And this time, it is the LPL himself, the guy IN CHARGE of the CR-Z, whom 'promised' me and Honda enthusiasts.
To cut it short, I think people should make a decision to either stay - and accept what Honda has decided to do - or move on. We can even have the best of both worlds too. Get a high revving engine from those manufacturers who still wants to make it (looks like pretty much all other major manufacturers except Honda at this point, sad to say), like the Toyota 86 for e.g., and perhaps still support the company we like, by getting one of their mainstream models. Those are still pretty good, as long as we don't expect too much sportiness out of it.
|
I dunno Wong.. the two cars that I currently really would buy, an ILX-S Tech (Navi, LSD, 2.4, AT6SS) Wagon and a Civic Si NAVI Wagon (Navi, LSD, 2.2, MT6) are not being made. (Notice that I did not specify a K motor... and ED will be fine with me..)
In the meantime we are trying to get our hands on a TSX Tech Wagon.
As much as I love the high winding K20s, B18C and even the H22A.. the smaller motors (20, 18) got tiring after awhile because of lack of torque). The H22A was much easier to drive around.
The purists lament the loss of the very high red line 2 liters, and in the race track this may be true, but out on the street the slightly larger, slightly lower redline motors are the winners.
And I find that Honda Sport Shift, when properly implemented.. (ie: 04 TL yes... 01 CL no) works extremely well. I'm at the point were I think that a "multi gear sequential CVT" with a 2.0 ED motor might just be the enthusiast's ticket.
Even as I lament the loss of the MT... HMC being one of the best automakers at it.
Oh, BTW, I think the J30/32 was all the motor the Accord/TL/TSX needed.
I just think that many are yearning for the past: small, torque less wonders, with stratospheric redlines and clickety-click shifters.
Unfortunately CAFE and OBD-II are killing that. Current powertrains need to be fully configured and tactically controlled by the firmware while the driver purely provides strategic commands. (That is, while the firmware tells the powertrain HOW to do it, the driver tells the firmware WHAT to do). The end result is maximum efficiency and minimum pollution.
Hence, I think ED with "sequential" CVTs will work. Mild hybridization (a la IMA-2) fully integrated under firmware control will also maximize the efficiency of the powertrain.
There is no going back..
And the thought of Porsche SUVs and sedans is hideous. I saw a Panamerica hybrid in my neighborhood the other day... "What's the point".. I thought.....
|
TonyEX
|
|
rev2damoon wrote:
Honda may be saving and making money by letting the bean-counters take charge, but it is coming at a price. Those qualities which helped spark the creation of this very website are all but gone from the Honda we see before us today. That tachometer integrated into the TOV logo means something...It actually _meant_ something. What does it mean today? Honda may indeed be better off financially becoming a more efficient "appliance maker", but let's not delude ourselves into thinking the cars are just as exciting as they've been in the past.
Honda's current halo performance model here in the US is a "watered down from the previous generation" Civic Si...Or maybe it's the V6 Accord? Doesn't really matter. The price Honda pays for trying to become a better Toyota is it's soul. It is being sucked dry. Enthusiasts can and will move on, but it is important that Honda "knows" that they're losing this crowd and "why" they're losing it. The scarier version is that they already know they're soul is gone along with the enthusiast crowd, but they're continuing down that path anyway. Maybe they think their past is just an "illusion" created by the media. If that's the case, then they're horribly, horribly misguided.
|
And whose fault is that?
http://www.starpulse.com/Notables/Gore,_Al/Pictures/
Don't blame the automakers, blame the politicians who are trying to build power and money on the backs of auto enthusiasts.
|
Potenza
|
|
owequitit wrote:
Seriously? This is the approach you are going to take?
And no, compared to the 7.5K, 8K, 8.5K, and 9K redlines that have been commonplace among Honda's enthusiast engines, 7.1K is nowhere near impressive.
|
What is all this masturbation over RPM red line? Regardless of how much work you put into your arguments, to me this sounds like background dialogue in a Fast and Furious movie. Personally, I'm worried that such high revs will blow the welds on the intake manifold, and the Mad Scientist will have to rip apart the block to replace the piston rings you fried.
|
RocketRon
|
|
Potenza wrote:
owequitit wrote:
Seriously? This is the approach you are going to take?
And no, compared to the 7.5K, 8K, 8.5K, and 9K redlines that have been commonplace among Honda's enthusiast engines, 7.1K is nowhere near impressive.
|
What is all this masturbation over RPM red line? Regardless of how much work you put into your arguments, to me this sounds like background dialogue in a Fast and Furious movie. Personally, I'm worried that such high revs will blow the welds on the intake manifold, and the Mad Scientist will have to rip apart the block to replace the piston rings you fried.
|
Potenza,
To my knowledge, my high revving 2011 Si is covered by the same warranty provided for other regular Honda's, so what's your point?
Have you ever owned an 8000k RPM performance engine?
|
Chocs
|
|
RocketRon wrote:
Have you ever owned an 8000k RPM performance engine?
|
Probably not ;)
|
TonyEX
|
|
RocketRon wrote:
Have you ever owned an 8000k RPM performance engine?
|
Have you ever owned a 7100 RPM performance engine?
Trust me, the J30 in our '05 Accord MT6 and the H22A in our '00 were likely better over all.... they had THRUST that your K20Z does not.
And the H22A, old as it now is, had the craziest VTEC kick that you can imagine. I dare say that the H22A with ATTS was more than a classic than your Si's.
And that Accord.... dude that was an engine looking for a sport car. I mean, think, the J30 effectively has the same per cylinder displacement as the K20. But it had torque, torque.... and it would bury itself into the redline as fast (actually the redline being lower, it did it sooner) than your K20Z.
Then, there was the J32 in the TL.... woohoo...
Those motors did not have the 8000 rpm redline, but they traded it for a robust bottom end... so that by the time the 20 liter was gaining its punch, the larger motors were long gone down the road.
I loved the Prelude SH. It's a pity they quit making them.
|
RocketRon
|
|
TonyE wrote:
RocketRon wrote:
Have you ever owned an 8000k RPM performance engine?
|
Have you ever owned a 7100 RPM performance engine?
Trust me, the J30 in our '05 Accord MT6 and the H22A in our '00 were likely better over all.... they had THRUST that your K20Z does not.
And the H22A, old as it now is, had the craziest VTEC kick that you can imagine. I dare say that the H22A with ATTS was more than a classic than your Si's.
And that Accord.... dude that was an engine looking for a sport car. I mean, think, the J30 effectively has the same per cylinder displacement as the K20. But it had torque, torque.... and it would bury itself into the redline as fast (actually the redline being lower, it did it sooner) than your K20Z.
Then, there was the J32 in the TL.... woohoo...
Those motors did not have the 8000 rpm redline, but they traded it for a robust bottom end... so that by the time the 20 liter was gaining its punch, the larger motors were long gone down the road.
I loved the Prelude SH. It's a pity they quit making them.
|
Tone,
I love my 1990 5.0 Mustang LX coupe, this car redifined torque 20 years ago.
The cars you mentionned were equipped with larger displacement engines, yet they are not faster. As an engineer, don't you appreciate efficiency?
But really, it's not all about speed, nothing compares to the rush provided by an high revving engine. Alas, they can only be found on exotics these days.
That said, I do understand that the world is changing...heck the next Ferrari Enzo shall be an hybrid.
|
RocketRon
|
|
Oops, this part part will make more sense now...
The cars you mentionned were equipped with larger displacement engines (J30, H22) than the K20, yet they are not faster. As an engineer, don't you appreciate efficiency?
|
owequitit
|
|
Grace141 wrote:
Owe, in the discussion thread in which you compared the Civic Si to a Ferrari I mentioned the idea of a level playing field.
- The 2016 CAFE requirements are calculated for each manufacturer based on a number of variables such as the types of car offered, the size of the cars, the wheelbase of the cars. The list is lengthy. I know it is fact that BMW received several exemptions for their cars because they were determined to be a niche manufacturer. I don't know about Porsche.
- The CARB ratings are specific about emissions from individual cars but no one here ever talks about the manufacturer ratings doled out by our friends in California more or less requiring each manufacturer to sell a given percentage of P-ZEV cars in its product mix with, again, total numbers of cars sold taking into account. This requirement has changed over the years but the last I read it was still in place.
- Economies of scale always come into play.
- I don' recall Porsche making a bold CO2 reduction commitment of any kind. Maybe they have and I just haven't read of it. We can agree this is a questionable (or silly) move by Honda but they didn't ask for my opinion. Honda's CO2 reduction goals go beyond the CARB requirements in scale because they are targeting a specific pollutant and not just an overall mix.
The question Honda should ask Porsche is how they will downscale this technology into a $22k US sedan and coupe which will sell in an unknown quantity. It won't be an Audi, for certain, so we'll see a $22k GTi/GLi with a 9k redline? Better still, a Jetta which won't fall apart within the first 150k miles. Has anyone here bought a new Jetta and put 150k miles on it?
The question we should be asking Honda is why not offer a high-er revving engine for the Si. Has anyone here with the access thought to do that? Has anyone inside Honda actually said "yeah, this is a lot cheaper"? Can anyone here who builds these motors or who works in the manufacturing sector say how many US dollars cheaper it is to build the K24 TSX motor than a separate K20 Si motor?
|
Grace, you have to hand pick facts about emissions and CAFE in order to build your argument.
1) The reason BMW got exceptions was because they convinced the US govt that they were "boutique." The number of sales required to get CAFE exemption pretty much matches BMW's total annual sales. It was not coincidental that it occurred that way as BMW lobbied hard, and won for that number.
That said, the EPA was also quite clear that ANY division of a volume automaker would be counted against a larger brand's EPA score. I.E. Audi counts for VW (as should Lamborghini, Porsche, etc), just as Lexus counts for Toyota and Acura counts towards Honda's score. Thus it is unlikely that companies like Porsche (who are building this monstrous high-revving V8) don't have the same concerns as Honda simply due to the fact that it all factors into VW's CAFE score. With the total US volume of VW and Audi, it isn't like their sales are so high that they don't have to worry about Porsche, which sells in a fair volume in and of itself.
Even if you remove Ferrari and BMW completely, it still doesn't explain away Ford, GM, Porsche, Audi, Subaru and Toyota, all of whom have several high revving offerings that will sticking around for awhile.
If this little factor didn't enter into the equation, I might agree that your argument has merit. But to pretend that 20,000 Hondas can't be offset with what amounts to a high CAFE score anyway, but 20,000 Porsches can magically disappear is simply silly.
You act as though something resembling a K20 with EGR and a few minor changes would be akin to a Bessemer Steel Mill, when the reality is that it would likely meet ULEV emission standards and perform very closely to the K24 that is in there now. It isn't like we are asking for a 7L decatted OHV V8 making 1200HP. Your groups assertions that the K20Z3 was some dirty pig are just silly. And it was a very clean engine without many simple technologies that Honda has developed AND implemented in the last 20 years, all of which improved emissions with little affect on HP. EGR and dual wall exhaust manifolds to name a few.
2) Your second premise is horrendously flawed because, again, it assumes that Honda has to meet some arbitrary metric that doesn't apply to anyone else. Last I saw, Ford and Toyota BOTH have to meet the same CAFE standards as Honda, and not only is the Scion FR-S equipped with a high revving NA 4 cylinder, but so is the Mustang. Too early to tell about the FR-S, but I can assure that several maginitudes more Mustangs are sold than Sis. So again, your premise is only valid if and only if, nobody else has to meet the same standard as Honda. Clearly, that is not the case, so clearly, your assumption that Ford can hide Mustangs but Honda can't hide Sis (which outperform the Mustangs to begin with in terms of CAFE score) is again, silly.
3) Even assuming CA is dictating different CAFE mixtures (which it isn't because CAFE is a nationally mandated program), your premise still doesn't hold for the same reason #2 doesn't hold.
4) Every vehicle sold in the US is required to meet the same minimum emissions standard. Perhaps you need to go back and read up on what CAFE is, because CAFE dictates MPG. Again, you can't tell me that a 30MPG Civic Si can't be lost in the wash, but the Mustang GT which is sold in far larger quantities and gets significantly worse MPG can. Especially when you consider Ford's fleet mix versus Hondas, and their current average MPG.
This brings me right back to my original point in this thread that you guys keep sending out the "emissions" and "MPG" mantra as though Honda is the only one that has to meet that condition. Sorry, but it is pure and total B.S. Honda is not special, they are not playing to a different set of rules, and I still have not seen a single slice of evidence presented from anyone who is anti-high revving that there is any factual data to suggest that putting a 20% larger engine that doesn't rev as high gets a better score. The only thing that contributes to Honda's score is the slight increase in MPG. Nothing else. From an emissions standpoint, the K24 does a little better, but again, there is nothing to suggest the K20 couldn't match it with very minor changes.
As for your cost assertions, let's look at why we know the K24 is cheaper.
1) The block is shared with every other K24 powered car sold worldwide. Since Honda literally builds hundreds of thousands of these per yer (if not over a million), there is some incremental cost savings there. The K20 did not share the identical block casting, because the K24's lengthened stroke required more deck height. The K24 block is several MM taller.
2) The K24 in the Si is essentially exactly the same as the engine in the TSX, but more importantly, it is virtually identical to the engine in the Accord EX. There again, is your volume advantage. Put a new tune on it (dirt cheap by engine component and manufacturing standards) and MAYBE change the pistons slightly (either way, they still match the TSX). Since the bore on the K24 is slightly larger than the K20Z3 (87mm vs 86) there is an incremental cost savings there too.
Add another incremental savings for the minor production line simplification of only having to deal with the K24.
2) Cylinder head. The K24 cylinder head is cheaper by virtue of simple component count. The exhaust cam is simpler, which means less material (fewer cam lobes), and less machining (don't need to machine as many lobes). There are no complex rocker arms on the exhaust side, and there are no lost motion assemblies. The split rocker arms and LMA's alone would reduce total parts count by a significant margin. Then, you have the reduced cost of the integrated exhaust manifold, which is one less part that Honda has to assemble since it is already in the head. The casting is a little bit more complex and expensive, but overall, not as much as what they save by not having to weld an exhaust manifold together on a much more complex head. They also save money on the gasket, which is now smaller and has less material. It is also not as complex as the 4 port gasket on the K20Z3. The transmission is largely the same as the TSX as well. My understanding was that the K20 and K24 transmission casings, castings and internals are fairly significantly different. People trying to swap K-series parts into their Hondas were typically having to mix and match transmissions because they aren't all the same.
Now, you said you wanted numbers, so here is the best I can do. I can buy all components wholesale and here is what it would cost me:
K20Z3:
Short Block: $1654
Head: $1660
Transmission: $3182
Total: $6496
K24Z7:
Short Block: $1567
Head: $1336
Transmission: $1862
Total: $4765
Wholesale price difference: $1731 (27% cost reduction).
Now, before you get all defensive, Honda's internal cost is very secret and nobody who had access to that stuff would divulge it. However, I have to assume that they have a fairly standard method of calculating retail cost based on internal cost, so to some degree, I am inclined to believe that the margins of difference are somewhat related to their cost savings/losses.
We know that the powertrain is more "drivable" by virtue of its additional torque, and we also know that it does slighly better in MPG and emissions. What we don't know is how the K20Z3 would have faired with a little bit of extra cost and a few minor changes. Given the fact that the powertrain could be up to 30% cheaper though, I think it is pretty hard to deny that internal cost savings played a large role, especially with all of the media stuff floating around about Honda having to reduce cost in the face of financial apocalypse...
*As an interesting side note, HPD sells the K20R from the Civic FD2-R for less money than it sells the USDM K20Z3. And it made an additional 25HP and about an additional 20 lb-ft of torque over the same, broad powerband. That puts it within about 10 lb-ft of the K24Z7, but it made more than 90% of its peak over an additional 3-4K RPM vs the K24Z7. Again, you ALL chose to focus solely on the revs. While yes, the revs are a large part of what has ALWAYS made Hondas fun (all the way back to their motorcycles and cars from the 60's), it is STILL less about the K24's rev ceiling and more about Honda's total retreat from engine technology. From a purely technological standpoint, the K24Z7 is inferior to the K20Z3 as far as an engine in an enthusiast product is concerned. You can sit there and tell us we are wrong all you want, but the reality is that if you took the K20Z3 head and bolted it onto the K24Z7 block (which is what NASA and SCCA are allowing race teams to do), you would be looking at more like 220-230HP and probably similar peak torque. But the part you wouldn't hear about is that the K24 with a K20Z3 head would produce a powerband very similar to the K20Z3, with it making 90+% of peak torque from just off idle (about 2,000RPM to just shy of 6-7K RPM). The current K24Z7 can only deliver that % of peak torque between about 3K and 5K RPM, so no matter how you slice it, the engine could have been better. The funny thing about this, is that if you look at the K24Z7 dyno curves, Honda could have gotten that power without increasing the redline at all. Why? Because not having the torque drop like a rock over 5K RPM would have allowed the engine to make a lot more top end power without NEEDING more revs (since HP is a function of torque x RPM). If the Si debuted with a K24Z7 that made 220HP and 170-180 lb-ft from 2K-7K, you wouldn't have heard a peep out of me, even with a 7100RPM redline. But now, I get a very marginal performance increase and I lose about 80% of what separated the Si from its much faster competitors. Or they could have put a K20R, or a K22 with more emissions friendly tuning. Either way, we would have gotten a lot more car. The only thing we wouldn't have gotten was a cheaper car, and frankly, I would have been OK with that. So let's pay less focus to the revs and more attention to the real problem, shall we? Even assuming the K20Z3 is the single shittiest engine ever built, it has the lowest torque and nobody wants to rev past 6 grand, the K24 is still an excuse of what it should have been, and even worse, is a lame excuse for what Honda COULD have made.
Perhaps you guys don't understand because you don't spend the time looking at the stuff some of the enthusiasts do, I don't know. What I do know is that the K24Z7 is compromised in a lot of ways versus what it could have been. The only unquestionably strong answer I can find that Honda wouldn't have been able to work around with minor effort is cost.
Think of it as akin to the VCM J35 in the Accord. It isn't necessarily a bad engine, and you would never know the difference; until you drove the non-VCM J35 in the Accord coupe 6MT, or any number of older, non-VCM J series engines. On paper, it has more torque and power than the J30A4/A5 it replaced in the 7th gen Accord. Realistically, it isn't faster (peak or otherwise) because it makes it additional torque in a very narrow range of RPM. It isn't more flexible, it isn't more refined, it doesn't deliver the same real world MPG, and it isn't as nice to drive. Does it make more torque? Yes. Does it perform vs the J30A4/A5 to a margin that its specs on paper would suggest? Not even close.
|
RocketRon
|
|
Just for you Tone,
Enjoy the torqueless K20 versus the NSX, S2000, Acura Type R and 350Z. This is what legends are made of buddy:
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ncnV7A8-zKw
Crazy, heh?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 3 4 5 6 |
| |
|
![[home]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/home.gif){kind=small}
![[rumors and news]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/rumors.gif){kind=small}
![[model release matrix]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/newmodelreleasematrix.gif){kind=small}
![[dealer network]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/dealernet.gif){kind=small}
![[desktop calendar]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/calendar.gif){kind=small}
![[exhaust notes]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/exhaust.gif){kind=small}
![[tov forums]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/forums.gif){kind=small}
![[links]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/links.gif){kind=small}
![[search]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/search.gif){kind=small}
![[sponsors]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/sponsors.gif){kind=small}
![[garage]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/garage.gif){kind=small}
![[login]](http://sohc.vtec.net/elem04/login.gif){kind=small}
