|
|
|
|
 |
King77
 |
|
Oops. And I hoped for "good old Honda return" side by side with beautiful 9G Civic styling.
Yes, there is one positive think: more torque in low-mid range. But...
K24 is a bit overstroked and that means it probably will not be 8000 rpm screamer. And no high-revs, no sound and reduced fun.
And - having the same (or similar) power from bigger dispacement, it is an American way, not Japanese/Honda way. Well - K20, 240 BHP, thatīs fine. But this way makes me sad. I know market wants low revs power and doesnīt care of high end, but why is Honda on its way to completely lose its character?
Itīs time to be afraid of what Honda prepares for Euro CTR...
|
danielgr
|
|
King77 wrote:
[...]Itīs time to be afraid of what Honda prepares for Euro CTR... |
Europe is not the USA.
|
King77
|
|
Yes, American Si was always "poor relative" od JDM and Euro Type R family and itīs technical excellence in current generation was infuenced by "clever" RSX cancelling.
So this side-step could be a "making space" for RSX-or-something Acura compact car with better tech.
But as DCR said in another thread - in current time, when competition arm hard with DI engines and turbo engines, is really R18 and K24 evolution the best answer Honda has after 6 years cycle? America or not. Of course, there should be huge improvements, but it doesnīt sound like this.
|
sennaFAN
|
|
|
Daniel what do you think they will do in the uk given the success of the CTR brand. I cant believe they will drop it from their line up and as the 2.0 is consigned to history now what is the alternative ??
|
King77
|
|
|
We can be pretty sure we will have CTR again. I hope in higher rated K20 again or for example for K22 with 220 hp and 240 Nm. But according to current fashion in Europe it could be as well "CR-Z-rumoured" 1.6 Turbo.
|
Fan Koni
|
|
Will there really be a CTR?
I am hoping but I continue to feel bad when I think about it.
If Honda is lazy about the Si - which outsells the CTR by 10 times?
Why should they care about the CTR.
I mean with all the 2.0Ts from VW,Audi, Renalt, Ford... the CTR would have to be serious. I think R is special for Honda.
The K24 in a civic would be a marketing shot in the knee.
The responce:
...oh look Honda have changed their way - no high reving small displacement engines, now more displacement than the competition with less power...
Oh well its an american company now - they don't need IRS in "performance" cars...
bla bla.
So alternatively maybe a 1.6T replacing the 1.8 in a base version, and with 200HP in a "CTR"?
Yes the engine would be good (but I do fear the cheap R16 could be base), but against the others this CTR would look dumb on paper and on track.
I feel bad, I don't see a CTR...
|
King77
|
|
Firstly - CTR FN2 was a huge succes for Honda - best-selling 3D HH in UK, here in CZ second best selling compact HH overall, so I expect similar results across Europe. Of course, it is a niche market, bud every success counts.
Secondly - while small HH market fades, practically every manufacturer has a car in compact HH class and there is no reason for Honda to retire.
Thirdly - something BIG happens by Toyota, thanks to sportscar enthusiast boss Akio Toyoda (FT-86, G-Sports lineup, RWD Aygo etc.) and Honda like chronical Toyota-follower needs to catch a train. ;-) I hope...
|
z-zero
|
|
King77 wrote:
K24 is a bit overstroked and that means it probably will not be 8000 rpm screamer. And no high-revs, no sound and reduced fun.
|
Yeah, I HATE when OEMs increase power and torque in their automobiles... it certainly DOES make them less fun.
The K24 has FAR more potential than the 2.0l. Even in stock trim, with +35lb-ft of twist, it will be an all around faster car.
Engine RPMs are not the end all and be all of performance.
|
sugaki
|
|
z-zero wrote:The K24 has FAR more potential than the 2.0l. Even in stock trim, with +35lb-ft of twist, it will be an all around faster car.
Engine RPMs are not the end all and be all of performance.
|
...except, nobody here has said RPM is the end-all-be-all. K24 having more potential? Where do you get that from? No exhaust-side Vtec? Integrated exhaust manifold preventing swapping out the header? I wonder how these things are registering to you as "more potential"? Please.
|
owequitit
|
|
z-zero wrote:
King77 wrote:
K24 is a bit overstroked and that means it probably will not be 8000 rpm screamer. And no high-revs, no sound and reduced fun.
|
Yeah, I HATE when OEMs increase power and torque in their automobiles... it certainly DOES make them less fun.
The K24 has FAR more potential than the 2.0l. Even in stock trim, with +35lb-ft of twist, it will be an all around faster car.
Engine RPMs are not the end all and be all of performance.
|
I am going to make a post with big bold numbers, since most have proven the point about being ignorant to the realities of what goes into actually getting power to the ground.
The additional torque multiplied by taller gearing = less torque than what it appears you get on paper. At the wheels, you are not getting a +35 lb-ft advantage. Also, based on dyno plots of both, the TSX only holds a mega advantage over about 1000RPM of the powerband.
|
bluefz22
|
|
owequitit wrote:
z-zero wrote:
King77 wrote:
K24 is a bit overstroked and that means it probably will not be 8000 rpm screamer. And no high-revs, no sound and reduced fun.
|
Yeah, I HATE when OEMs increase power and torque in their automobiles... it certainly DOES make them less fun.
The K24 has FAR more potential than the 2.0l. Even in stock trim, with +35lb-ft of twist, it will be an all around faster car.
Engine RPMs are not the end all and be all of performance.
|
I am going to make a post with big bold numbers, since most have proven the point about being ignorant to the realities of what goes into actually getting power to the ground.
The additional torque multiplied by taller gearing = less torque than what it appears you get on paper. At the wheels, you are not getting a +35 lb-ft advantage. Also, based on dyno plots of both, the TSX only holds a mega advantage over about 1000RPM of the powerband.
|
You keep getting things wrong. Oh! No! Mr. Bill. The Gears! The Gears! The TSX 2.4 and the 2.0 SI have the same final drive ratio and the 6 individual gear ratios are,virtually,the same. You could look it up.
|
z-zero
|
|
OMG!
There is a saying, and it's true and goes like, "There is no replacement for displacement."
Ever heard of the head-swap on the K24A4? Seen those numbers with the "dual" vtec on intake and exhaust on a 2.4L displacement engine?
OMG...... Boo hoo, there exhaust manifold is not swappable and therefore there are NO options for modding the engine. Oh come on! If you're not out doing it, you're being out done!
There is a supercharger option for the TSX... and a boosted 2.4L will waste a boosted 2.0L even without a 1,000,000rpm redline.
So because the exhaust manifold is cast onto the motor... there are NO other options? Pa-leeze... So the only mods available are an intake, and exhaust manifold? Really?
I forgot that the aftermarket vendors won't compensate with other modifications to the new Si... They're just going to leave it and ignore the income potential from making performance parts for the engine.
I would rather start off with boosting an engine that is larger and more powerful (stock) than an engine that is smaller and weaker (stock).
Come on already.... Don't go crying that the Si is getting a bigger more powerful engine. There is a lot of potential in the TSX K24 even despite the exhaust manifold.
And given the torque curve of the K24, its going to have way more torque down low that is going propel the car soooo much easier than before. Its going to be more streetable than the current car, and if boosted, that torque curve is going to get soooo much sweeter.
|
P54
|
|
Read this:
Acura TSX sport wagon is a lot of fun
Praising the K24, 5 speed AT and the fun factor. All this in a 3600lbs. wagon. Consider this engine with 10 more horses and tuned differently to Si and 1000lb less weight.
"The drivetrain was a star. The four-cylinder engine made its satisfying power not from turbocharging, but by being designed to maximize the engine's high-revving abilities (7,000 rpm redline), yet not require that it be driven flat-out to perform well. Thus, fun to flog and satisfying in the stop and lurch of crowded suburban traffic.
The five-speed automatic how quaint in this age of eight-speed gearboxes creeping like choking vines into more and more machines shifted brilliantly, changing gears briskly and without pausing first for consultation with the fuel-economy overlords. The automatic shifted so nicely it was heartbreaking to realize what gearbox mediocrity satisfies some other automakers.
......lots of wide-open-throttle bursts, because they were fun."
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2011-01-27-test-drive-acura-tsx-healey_N.htm
|
notyper
|
|
You keep crowing about this in multiple threads, but you're not looking at the whole picture:
The difference in gear ratios (negative means the TSX is geared taller):
1 - 0%
2 - -4&
3 - -5%
4 - -7%
5 - -6%
6 - +5% (yes, the TSX is geared tighter in 6th)
Final drive, of course is the same.
However, relative gearing also depends upon the tire diameter. In the case of the Si, that is 24.62". For the TSX it is 25.85". A difference of 5%. That means that even with the same gear ratios, the TSX is geared 5% taller across the board. That makes the overall differences become:
1 - -5%
2 - -9%
3 - -10%
4 - -12%
5 - -11%
6 - 0%
Given that the TSX has about a 10% lower redline, this is about what you'd expect (except for 6th perhaps). It allows the car to reach the same speed in gear as the Si despite the lower redline. Honda may choose different ratios for the 9th gen Si w/K24, but given the emissions and fuel economy concerns, I don't put good odds on that.
With approximately 10% taller gearing, the torque at the wheels would be reduced by 10% relative to a car with Si gearing. If the 9th gen Si motor is similar to the TSX K24, using dyno plots, we wouldn't feel much difference below 2500-3000 rpm (since the current Si K20 has great torque), or above 6000 rpm. But between 3000 and 6000 rpm where the revisions to the K24 in the TSX really helped, it should pull about 10% stronger than the K20 Si. That also is logical because the K24 is 18% bigger than the K20, and minus the ~10% gearing change, you'd expect about 8% more pull at peak torque.
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
You keep getting things wrong. Oh! No! Mr. Bill. The Gears! The Gears! The TSX 2.4 and the 2.0 SI have the same final drive ratio and the 6 individual gear ratios are,virtually,the same. You could look it up.
|
|
owequitit
|
|
z-zero wrote:
OMG!
There is a saying, and it's true and goes like, "There is no replacement for displacement."
Ever heard of the head-swap on the K24A4? Seen those numbers with the "dual" vtec on intake and exhaust on a 2.4L displacement engine?
OMG...... Boo hoo, there exhaust manifold is not swappable and therefore there are NO options for modding the engine. Oh come on! If you're not out doing it, you're being out done!
There is a supercharger option for the TSX... and a boosted 2.4L will waste a boosted 2.0L even without a 1,000,000rpm redline.
So because the exhaust manifold is cast onto the motor... there are NO other options? Pa-leeze... So the only mods available are an intake, and exhaust manifold? Really?
I forgot that the aftermarket vendors won't compensate with other modifications to the new Si... They're just going to leave it and ignore the income potential from making performance parts for the engine.
I would rather start off with boosting an engine that is larger and more powerful (stock) than an engine that is smaller and weaker (stock).
Come on already.... Don't go crying that the Si is getting a bigger more powerful engine. There is a lot of potential in the TSX K24 even despite the exhaust manifold.
And given the torque curve of the K24, its going to have way more torque down low that is going propel the car soooo much easier than before. Its going to be more streetable than the current car, and if boosted, that torque curve is going to get soooo much sweeter.
|
Yup. Let's spew the same ignorant nonsense as Fuzzychomps.
Why is a CBR600 faster than a Harley with over twice the displacement? No replacement for displacement huh? B.S.
What if I have no intention of modifying or swapping the head on my car? Then what? Stock engine versus stock engine, and NA bolt ons vs NA bolt ons, the K20Z3 is going to VERY quickly close the gap on the K24.
And the boost arguement is silly. If I LOOK at the K20Z3 with boost sideways, it makes more than enough power to completely overwhelm the chassis. Once you get to the limits of traction, more power matters a whole lot less.
Not to mention that you are making the same fatal assumption as everyone else, which is that this K24 will have as much headroom as previous K24's, only it doesn't because the head is inferior.
If you buy a brand new Si to swap the head, and boost the shit out of it to not have to make excuses for it, well, that is your choice.
|
bluefz22
|
|
notyper wrote:
You keep crowing about this in multiple threads, but you're not looking at the whole picture:
The difference in gear ratios (negative means the TSX is geared taller):
1 - 0%
2 - -4&
3 - -5%
4 - -7%
5 - -6%
6 - +5% (yes, the TSX is geared tighter in 6th)
Final drive, of course is the same.
However, relative gearing also depends upon the tire diameter. In the case of the Si, that is 24.62". For the TSX it is 25.85". A difference of 5%. That means that even with the same gear ratios, the TSX is geared 5% taller across the board. That makes the overall differences become:
1 - -5%
2 - -9%
3 - -10%
4 - -12%
5 - -11%
6 - 0%
Given that the TSX has about a 10% lower redline, this is about what you'd expect (except for 6th perhaps). It allows the car to reach the same speed in gear as the Si despite the lower redline. Honda may choose different ratios for the 9th gen Si w/K24, but given the emissions and fuel economy concerns, I don't put good odds on that.
With approximately 10% taller gearing, the torque at the wheels would be reduced by 10% relative to a car with Si gearing. If the 9th gen Si motor is similar to the TSX K24, using dyno plots, we wouldn't feel much difference below 2500-3000 rpm (since the current Si K20 has great torque), or above 6000 rpm. But between 3000 and 6000 rpm where the revisions to the K24 in the TSX really helped, it should pull about 10% stronger than the K20 Si. That also is logical because the K24 is 18% bigger than the K20, and minus the ~10% gearing change, you'd expect about 8% more pull at peak torque.
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
You keep getting things wrong. Oh! No! Mr. Bill. The Gears! The Gears! The TSX 2.4 and the 2.0 SI have the same final drive ratio and the 6 individual gear ratios are,virtually,the same. You could look it up.
|
|
This was in response to OQ who went into a long,misguided,dog and pony show, re the much longer gearing in the 2.4 TSX vs. the SI........and got it wrong.....as usual. The point is, Honda can gear the 2.4 anyway they want,right. Now to your post. Interesting re the tire diameter,but incorrect. The 2.4 is going into the SI,so,no adjustment for the TSX tire size is appropriate in your example...........Think about it.
|
notyper
|
|
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
bluefz22
|
|
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
owequitit
|
|
bluefz22 wrote:
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
1) I have pretty clearly said, several times that I expect about a 7-8% increase in certain parts of the powerband with the new Si, so don't pretend I didn't.
However, a slightly detuned K20R with current Si gearing would have provided more thrust. Period. More powerband, very little torque loss through the midrange, and probably equal or superior torque output at the bottom and top end (the K20Z3 is 30 lb-ft weaker off idle, nor is the K24 as capable up top since all changes sacrifice for midrange). I get my rev happy powerband, you get your additional torque, and likely real world, part throttle FE remains the same or improves.
2) You are still ignoring the gearing, which is fine, but you are about out of steam on the matter. Once the specs are released, you will see that the Si isn't getting K20 gearing. But, we'll just wait and watch.
|
JeffX
|
|
bluefz22 wrote:
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
You are completely ignoring the points that Shawn is making. Read what Shawn said. Honda's NOT going to put a car on the road that is topping out at 52mph in 2nd gear. It's just not gonna happen. It would kill fuel economy and people would hate driving it because it would suck having to shift so early.
So the EFFECTIVE gearing will very likely be very similar to what the TSX has, perhaps it will even be a little bit taller since the Si will weigh considerably less than the TSX. As Shawn has pointed out, the TSX's EFFECTIVE gear ratios (taking into account trans ratio, final drive, AND wheel radius) are all taller than the current Si's in the first 5 gears. That's why its shiftpoints (max speed per gear) are similar to the current Si's, despite the 1000rpm lower redline. In all likelihood, the '12 Si's EFFECTIVE gear ratios will be very similar to the TSX. Whether it's made up via final drive, tire diameter, or individual ratios - it doesn't matter, the effective ratios most likely won't be any shorter than the TSX 6MT's. So all this extra torque you guys are salivating over really won't amount to much once you account for the abbreviated rev capacity and taller effective gearing. Anybody who's paid attention to Honda performance over the past 20 years should be pretty well versed in this.
By the way, I just dyno tested a bone stock 2011 Si Coupe and it put 192.0hp to the wheels (on a dynojet). The last 6MT TSX (2009 model) I tested put down 181hp. I'm going to test a 2011 TSX 6MT as soon as I can get one.
|
owequitit
|
|
owequitit wrote:
bluefz22 wrote:
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
1) I have pretty clearly said, several times that I expect about a 7-8% increase in certain parts of the powerband with the new Si, so don't pretend I didn't.
However, a slightly detuned K20R with current Si gearing would have provided more thrust. Period. More powerband, very little torque loss through the midrange, and probably equal or superior torque output at the bottom and top end (the K20Z3 is 30 lb-ft weaker off idle, nor is the K24 as capable up top since all changes sacrifice for midrange). I get my rev happy powerband, you get your additional torque, and likely real world, part throttle FE remains the same or improves.
2) You are still ignoring the gearing, which is fine, but you are about out of steam on the matter. Once the specs are released, you will see that the Si isn't getting K20 gearing. But, we'll just wait and watch.
|
Before I get jumped for it, I MEANT to say that the K20Z3 is NOT 30 lb-ft weaker off idle. Surprisingly, in comparing plots (on a car that put down about 10WHP less than what Jeff just revealed), the TSX's only ~20-30lb-ft advantage was over a narrow 1000RPM range.
|
bluefz22
|
|
owequitit wrote:
owequitit wrote:
bluefz22 wrote:
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
1) I have pretty clearly said, several times that I expect about a 7-8% increase in certain parts of the powerband with the new Si, so don't pretend I didn't.
However, a slightly detuned K20R with current Si gearing would have provided more thrust. Period. More powerband, very little torque loss through the midrange, and probably equal or superior torque output at the bottom and top end (the K20Z3 is 30 lb-ft weaker off idle, nor is the K24 as capable up top since all changes sacrifice for midrange). I get my rev happy powerband, you get your additional torque, and likely real world, part throttle FE remains the same or improves.
2) You are still ignoring the gearing, which is fine, but you are about out of steam on the matter. Once the specs are released, you will see that the Si isn't getting K20 gearing. But, we'll just wait and watch.
|
Before I get jumped for it, I MEANT to say that the K20Z3 is NOT 30 lb-ft weaker off idle. Surprisingly, in comparing plots (on a car that put down about 10WHP less than what Jeff just revealed), the TSX's only ~20-30lb-ft advantage was over a narrow 1000RPM range.
|
You didn't "get jumped" you just got called.
|
notyper
|
|
Don't be so obstinate. Jeff already summed it up for you again, but let me make it even simpler. Honda will _not_ have overall effective gearing in the Civic Si K24 that is more than a couple percent tighter (more aggressive) than what's in the TSX. And it will probably be less aggressive. I'll guarantee it. I'll even put up some serious green if you prefer.
Again, they are not just going to bolt a TSX engine and tranny into a Civic running the current Si's tire size. Ratios and/or tire size will change. If you want to bet, just tell me who should hold the money :)
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
|
bluefz22
|
|
Jeff wrote:
bluefz22 wrote:
notyper wrote:
3 things:
1) Gearing is going to be dictated by economy concerns as much as performance these days, especially with Honda. If they gear the Civic like the TSX, but with Civic sized tires, then they're going to reduce economy vs. the TSX, at least on the hwy. Not something I think they want to do (in fact, I'd suspect the weight of the Civic would offset around town economy and remain the same while hwy would be slightly worse than the TSX, notwithstanding major aero improvements on the Civic). Given that the 6MT TSX is already rated 1 mpg worse than the current Si, not a good move. Nor is such a move necessary because the lighter Civic could carry a taller gear while still retaining better acceleration than the TSX.
2) Running TSX gearing with Civic tires is going to shorten up the gearbox enough that the Civic will fall short in certain performance metrics that most carmakers seem to value. Namely, 0-60 will require a shift to 3rd gear, which will slow magazine times by 0.3-0.5 seconds. Not important in the real world, but magazine numbers help sell cars and OEMs do care. Running TSX gears with Civic tires and a 7100 rpm rev limit would see 2nd gear top out at 52 mph, and 6th would be turning 3000 rpm at only 65 mph vs. 70 mph in the current Si setup.
3.) Owequitit was not out of line with the TSX gearing discussions. Tire size is part of gearing because it affects torque multiplication, and the TSX is generally geared about 10% taller.....because it has to offset the lower revs available from the K24. Fact of life.
SC
|
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
You are completely ignoring the points that Shawn is making. Read what Shawn said. Honda's NOT going to put a car on the road that is topping out at 52mph in 2nd gear. It's just not gonna happen. It would kill fuel economy and people would hate driving it because it would suck having to shift so early.
So the EFFECTIVE gearing will very likely be very similar to what the TSX has, perhaps it will even be a little bit taller since the Si will weigh considerably less than the TSX. As Shawn has pointed out, the TSX's EFFECTIVE gear ratios (taking into account trans ratio, final drive, AND wheel radius) are all taller than the current Si's in the first 5 gears. That's why its shiftpoints (max speed per gear) are similar to the current Si's, despite the 1000rpm lower redline. In all likelihood, the '12 Si's EFFECTIVE gear ratios will be very similar to the TSX. Whether it's made up via final drive, tire diameter, or individual ratios - it doesn't matter, the effective ratios most likely won't be any shorter than the TSX 6MT's. So all this extra torque you guys are salivating over really won't amount to much once you account for the abbreviated rev capacity and taller effective gearing. Anybody who's paid attention to Honda performance over the past 20 years should be pretty well versed in this.
By the way, I just dyno tested a bone stock 2011 Si Coupe and it put 192.0hp to the wheels (on a dynojet). The last 6MT TSX (2009 model) I tested put down 181hp. I'm going to test a 2011 TSX 6MT as soon as I can get one.
|
If you are addressing me,I don't know who Shawn is. Is notyper Shawn? My point was that the current TSX gearing is not much higher than the current SI gearing as OQ claimed . Honda can put any gearing they want in any engine. I did not state anything re the speed in the gears. We don't even have the car yet. So conclusions,based on suppositions,re a car we haven't got, are meaningless to me. I'll wait till we get the car. I have confidence that the new SI will be at least as quick,as the old car, and much more tractable. I disagree re the torque. The additional torque will be very noticeable and will be observed, and commented upon,in every road test. If Honda didn't think more torque was preferable,then why did they put the 2.4 in it?
|
bluefz22
|
|
notyper wrote:
Don't be so obstinate. Jeff already summed it up for you again, but let me make it even simpler. Honda will _not_ have overall effective gearing in the Civic Si K24 that is more than a couple percent tighter (more aggressive) than what's in the TSX. And it will probably be less aggressive. I'll guarantee it. I'll even put up some serious green if you prefer.
Again, they are not just going to bolt a TSX engine and tranny into a Civic running the current Si's tire size. Ratios and/or tire size will change. If you want to bet, just tell me who should hold the money :)
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
I'll pass on 1 and 2 since they are completely suppositional and address no 3. I'll make it real simple for you. I take the 2.4 out of the TSX and bolt it into the Si. With me so far? I haven't changed the tires on the Si:I just bolted the 2.4 into it,right? The tire diameter does not change,right? So,your tire diameter adjustment factor does not apply. It'd the Same Size SI tire,got it?
|
|
Lol. Obstinate re what? My point that Honda can put any gearset in any car they want? What's wrong with that point? My point that your adjustment for TSX tire size is not applicable to the SI? There is only 1 set of tires;The Si's tires,right? So,your adjustment,in your example,for tire size, from the TSX to the SI,is not applicable,right? My point is that your conclusions are based on suppositions. I base my conclusions on facts. And,we don't even have the car,or the facts,yet,do we? I'm content to wait for the car and the facts before I make very specific conclusions. I don't mean to sound "obstinate". I'm just making and defending my points.
|
notyper
|
|
You continue to ignore, willfully ignore per your own statements in this thread, the considerations that go into gearing choices. There are simple engineering considerations that go into choosing gearing and you don't want to acknowledge them. That's obstinant.
Look, believe what you want. Where do you think the confirmation about the engine choices for this piece came from? I've got a few sources most people don't. The overall gearing (that means the total combination of gear ratios, final drive and tire circumference) of the 9th gen Si will be far closer to the TSX than the current Si. Bank it.
SC
|
bluefz22
|
|
notyper wrote:
You continue to ignore, willfully ignore per your own statements in this thread, the considerations that go into gearing choices. There are simple engineering considerations that go into choosing gearing and you don't want to acknowledge them. That's obstinant.
Look, believe what you want. Where do you think the confirmation about the engine choices for this piece came from? I've got a few sources most people don't. The overall gearing (that means the total combination of gear ratios, final drive and tire circumference) of the 9th gen Si will be far closer to the TSX than the current Si. Bank it.
SC
|
No,no. I am the person who first said the gear ratios on the TSX were ,"virtually the same",as the SI. I checked the ratios before I first posted and before you listed them. So I think I got that correct. Also,Honda has already taken into account tire size when they publish the ratios so no tire adjustment factor is necessary between cars. The published gear ratio is net of the different tire diameter. So,no tire diameter adjustment is applicable. That's what I'm saying and that still seems correct. Sorry,but I assumed were were dealing with only published information. If you have information that the rest of us don't have,then I see better what you are saying. I'm looking forward to the new car. If the power is about 205 to 210,then that's a little less than I had hoped,but if Honda goes DI,in the future,then it could be maybe,240. What do you think?
|
CDN-SiR-02
|
|
It would seem to make sense that Honda would use gearing close to the current TSX. I graphed the two ratios and they are pretty close given the final drive and tire diameters of the two cars.
Comparison..
TSX 201hp@7000 172ft/lbs@4300
Si 197hp@7800 139ft/lbs@6100
Current Si Ratios /w top speed in each gear @8000rpm
4.76 Final Drive + 24.62" Tire Diameter
1st = 3.267 = 37.69mph
2nd = 2.130 = 57.82mph
3rd = 1.517 = 81.18mph
4th = 1.147 = 107.37mph
5th = .921 = 133.71mph
6th = .659 = 186.87mph
Current TSX Ratios /w top speed in each gear @7100rpm
4.764 Final Drive + 25.86" Tire Diameter
1st = 3.266 = 35.12mph
2nd = 1.880 = 61.01mph
3rd = 1.354 = 84.71mph
4th = 1.027 = 111.69mph
5th = .825 = 139.03mph
6th = .659 = 174.06mph
Assuming Honda uses TSX like gear ratios and keeps the 215/45-17 inch tires they can use the extra torque to make 2nd gear longer. This will get the car to 60mph in 2nd, making 0-60 quicker. The 1/4 mile should also be quicker.
Gearing changes + weight loss compared to the TSX + extra HP and torque. My estimates.
Current Si 0-60 = 6.6 (MotorTrend)
New estimate = 5.8 - 6.1
Current Si 1/4 = 15.0 (MotorTrend)
New estimate = 14.2 - 14.4
Comments?
|
notyper
|
|
No, you are wrong. The published gear ratios are mechanical ratios in the transmission. They do not take into account tire sizes. They are gear ratios. x teeth on the output side divided by y teeth on the input side gives you the ratio. That is how it works. But overall acceleration depends upon overall gearing, and tire size plays a role there. It affects both speed and torque delivered to the contact patch.
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
No,no. I am the person who first said the gear ratios on the TSX were ,"virtually the same",as the SI. I checked the ratios before I first posted and before you listed them. So I think I got that correct. Also,Honda has already taken into account tire size when they publish the ratios so no tire adjustment factor is necessary between cars. The published gear ratio is net of the different tire diameter. So,no tire diameter adjustment is applicable. That's what I'm saying and that still seems correct. Sorry,but I assumed were were dealing with only published information. If you have information that the rest of us don't have,then I see better what you are saying. I'm looking forward to the new car. If the power is about 205 to 210,then that's a little less than I had hoped,but if Honda goes DI,in the future,then it could be maybe,240. What do you think?
|
|
bluefz22
|
|
notyper wrote:
No, you are wrong. The published gear ratios are mechanical ratios in the transmission. They do not take into account tire sizes. They are gear ratios. x teeth on the output side divided by y teeth on the input side gives you the ratio. That is how it works. But overall acceleration depends upon overall gearing, and tire size plays a role there. It affects both speed and torque delivered to the contact patch.
SC
bluefz22 wrote:
No,no. I am the person who first said the gear ratios on the TSX were ,"virtually the same",as the SI. I checked the ratios before I first posted and before you listed them. So I think I got that correct. Also,Honda has already taken into account tire size when they publish the ratios so no tire adjustment factor is necessary between cars. The published gear ratio is net of the different tire diameter. So,no tire diameter adjustment is applicable. That's what I'm saying and that still seems correct. Sorry,but I assumed were were dealing with only published information. If you have information that the rest of us don't have,then I see better what you are saying. I'm looking forward to the new car. If the power is about 205 to 210,then that's a little less than I had hoped,but if Honda goes DI,in the future,then it could be maybe,240. What do you think?
|
|
I understand fully that tire diameter affects the ratio.I'll take your word that the ratios published ,by Honda,in their brochures,do not take into account the oem tire size. So then the published ratios are wrong,net of the tire diameter. Doesn't seem right,but,If you say so,I'll accept that.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Thread Page - [1] 2 |
| |
|
![[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}
