|
|
|
|
 |
VinceThe1
 |
|
|
hopefully, if they make a turbo it'll be on the big motor....i always hated the part where the weaker car has the bigger motor in the lineup, like mitsu, 2.4L I4 or 2.0L I4 Turbo....i absolutly hate that, and why does the turbo have to be a 2.3? couldn't they just make it a 2.4???
|
QBoi
 |
|
VinceThe1 wrote:
hopefully, if they make a turbo it'll be on the big motor....i always hated the part where the weaker car has the bigger motor in the lineup, like mitsu, 2.4L I4 or 2.0L I4 Turbo....i absolutly hate that, and why does the turbo have to be a 2.3? couldn't they just make it a 2.4???
|
What are you talking about? It's all about refinement, reliability and performance.
The displacement is smaller because of various things, such as strengthening the motor for more reliability.
If engineers had your mindsets, we would all have 8.0L V10s running around everywhere.
|
VinceThe1
 |
|
|
oh. so it's smaller by .054 of a liter less to make it more reliable? i c, how about the fact that honda didn't bore it out by a very little just to call it a different engine from the one in the accord not only because it's a turbo, it really doesn't matter about that 2.3 2.4 thing but about a nice v6 vs a more expensive 2.3L turbo with more power, it does to me.....if every1 had my engine mindset we wud be driving 4.0L v8s and 6.0L v12s, along with the 3.0 3.2 3.5 v6s and 2.0 2.2 2.4 I4s
|
Wizard
 |
|
VinceThe1 wrote:
oh. so it's smaller by .054 of a liter less to make it more reliable? i c, how about the fact that honda didn't bore it out by a very little just to call it a different engine from the one in the accord not only because it's a turbo
|
Think of K23 as an engine derived from K24 with slightly stronger cylinder walls to support turbo charging. As a result, some displacement was given up (54 cc total, down from 2354 cc to 2300 cc).
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] |
|  |
|