View Full Version : How Come honda doesn't make turbo cars
egmike
10-19-2002, 12:55 AM
Why has honda never made a turbo prodution car, just about every other company has... :dunno:
Ekliptix
10-19-2002, 12:56 AM
Because they chose to make small displacment high reving, high compression efficient engines.
They did just make a 4-stroke turbo personal watercraft though.
three.eighteen.
10-19-2002, 01:40 AM
wasnt honda's earlier success in F1 attributed to their turbo engines?...or am i remember two different facts in 1? anyone help?
finboy
10-19-2002, 01:43 AM
couse vtec makes madd more powa then some turbo...
atleast thats what that damn fool in the del sol told me :confused: :rofl:
RiCE-DaDDy
10-19-2002, 01:47 AM
i think their team of engineers don't have the skill, i mean they do but not as good as say SAAB
max_boost
10-19-2002, 01:47 AM
Honda is all about saving gas, high reving. more hp per liter sorta deal......something like that
No.not.again
10-19-2002, 02:05 AM
i think their team of engineers don't have the skill, i mean they do but not as good as say SAAB
dude, how can you say that? How do you explain 160horses from a 1.6 litre? What 'bout 195horses out of a 1.8? How 'bout 240horse from 2litres found in the s2k? All of this without a turbo... if you ask me, goin' turbo is takin' the easy way out.
finboy
10-19-2002, 02:07 AM
what torque #'s? :D
No.not.again
10-19-2002, 02:11 AM
does torque really matter? :confused: :D
haha
alright, you got me... hondas make as much torque as you and i would pedallin' our bikes. :rofl:
in the f1 racing in japan 2 of the 3 honda engines blew (from what i saw on 48)
GTS Jeff
10-19-2002, 02:47 AM
same reason honda doesnt make v8s. cuz boost is not fuel efficient.
Hollywood
10-19-2002, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R
same reason honda doesnt make v8s. cuz boost is not fuel efficient.
Yup!
Also it must be sort of a misson statement/specialization with them to produce fuel efficient N/A motors that have decent HP, Without using a turbo. Which is fine in all, but if you think if they would have spent the same large amount of time developing the engine for the s2000, squeezing any bit of HP they can out of a N/A 2L and made it a turbo instead, imagine how fast would it be.
Redlyne_mr2
10-19-2002, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by MR8
Why has honda never made a turbo prodution car, just about every other company has... :dunno:
they do its called the LIFE, available only in japan although it only has like 100hp or something like that which is typical honda
Hipermax_d
10-19-2002, 01:51 PM
honda wanted to be different
most of you guys read a honda ad in your import mags
mr. honda wanted to create an engine that is different from other manufacturers. so wanted to create excellent power without going turbo. its just too easy to turbo an engine and get mad power and also anyone can do that. so honda tried to get as much power possible from N/A
for example the integra type r, s2000, nsx
all have high potential, high reving engine which produces excellent power
Originally posted by three.eighteen.
wasnt honda's earlier success in F1 attributed to their turbo engines?...or am i remember two different facts in 1? anyone help?
yes that was true. that made a lot of power they over lapped almost all the other cars. then the rules changed and then all cars had a regulation
rage2
10-19-2002, 05:36 PM
I think it's more of a mission statement really. Turbo cars are very fuel efficient if you don't dip into the boost. I get like 500km on 65L of fuel from day to day driving in my 944, on boost once in a while when there's a challenge.
Hollywood
10-19-2002, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Hipermax_d
its just too easy to turbo an engine and get mad power and also anyone can do that. so honda tried to get as much power possible from N/A
I disagree with you 100% on this. There are engineering feats with adding a turbo and keeping N/A stability, emissions, engine longevity. Now add your "Mad Power", now you have to work a lot harder harder to keep those above virtues.
Notice the top fast cars under $100,000 are generally turbo, porche turbo's, audi s4, Supra's, Rx-7's, silvias, skylines, EVO's, stealth/VR4's.
In most respects, a turbo cars are superior to N/A's, as far as power goes. It's not easier to turbo just more logical.
GTS Jeff
10-20-2002, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by rage2
I think it's more of a mission statement really. Turbo cars are very fuel efficient if you don't dip into the boost. I get like 500km on 65L of fuel from day to day driving in my 944, on boost once in a while when there's a challenge. dude, that point is totally invalid.
what is the point of having a turbo to produce extra power if you never hit boost?
the whole idea behind hondas engine designs is power and economy at the same time. in a turbo setup, u are going to end up with both as well, but not at the same time.
economy is a REALLY big thing for honda. notice how they have practical gas-hybrids on the market right now? notice how they have come up with a 400hp/50mpg sports car? see all the minicars they have in asia and europe (fit, jazz, etc), notice how they refuse to use v8s until they can make them fuel efficient? see how they are leading the way in alternative energy source cars?
honda is all about the economy, and turbo just doesnt fit the bill.
[GaGe]
10-20-2002, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by No.not.again
does torque really matter? :confused: :D
haha
alright, you got me... hondas make as much torque as you and i would pedallin' our bikes. :rofl:
Haha.. Honda = torqueless beasts.
Lead Injector
10-20-2002, 12:34 AM
ah yes but "turbo" sounds much tougher than "vtec".
Seriously though I admire hondas vtec design, although I have one question- doesn't it damage the engine revving it that high? I know they redline at about 8000 but still...
(as you might of guessed I know little about hondas)
It's easy to get high hp out of an NA car too. All you have to do is hike up compression, and have displacement come from bore rather than stroke. This is exactly what honda has done. Where they make it work well though is doing it in a way that makes thier engines affordable and reliable and economical. VTEC does wonders as well, as the aggresive second cam profile matches the high revving nature of the engine, so they can take advantage of that, especially in DOHC engines where high flow is crutial in the higher RPM range. Why are they so economical? Cause under daily driving conditions, you drive in the lower end of the powerband (what do you B16 guys shift at? just under 4000 rpm?) the honda engine creates lawnmower like power here, but saves big time on gas. If you want to open it up though, just delay the shifts and rev like hell :D
5.9 R/T
10-20-2002, 12:42 AM
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R
dude, that point is totally invalid.
what is the point of having a turbo to produce extra power if you never hit boost?
the whole idea behind hondas engine designs is power and economy at the same time. in a turbo setup, u are going to end up with both as well, but not at the same time.
economy is a REALLY big thing for honda. notice how they have practical gas-hybrids on the market right now? notice how they have come up with a 400hp/50mpg sports car? see all the minicars they have in asia and europe (fit, jazz, etc), notice how they refuse to use v8s until they can make them fuel efficient? see how they are leading the way in alternative energy source cars?
honda is all about the economy, and turbo just doesnt fit the bill.
Sorry but your off the mark. Efficient and VTEC cannot be said in the same sentance. Why? Simple physics really, to get X hp you need Y fuel and Z air. Yes honda motors are efficent but once you start using what power they give you (VTEC, iVTEC) they are no longer efficient machines. Honda's goal, IMO, is to have a car(s) that get 30+ mpg in normal driving, yet still have the ability to perform when needed. Economy and performance are two things that, for now, cannot exist together.
Hollywood
10-20-2002, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by 5.9 R/T
Sorry but your off the mark. Efficient and VTEC cannot be said in the same sentance. Why? Simple physics really, to get X hp you need Y fuel and Z air. Yes honda motors are efficent but once you start using what power they give you (VTEC, iVTEC) they are no longer efficient machines. Honda's goal, IMO, is to have a car(s) that get 30+ mpg in normal driving, yet still have the ability to perform when needed. Economy and performance are two things that, for now, cannot exist together.
YUP!
Originally posted by 5.9 R/T
Sorry but your off the mark. Efficient and VTEC cannot be said in the same sentance. Why? Simple physics really, to get X hp you need Y fuel and Z air. Yes honda motors are efficent but once you start using what power they give you (VTEC, iVTEC) they are no longer efficient machines. Honda's goal, IMO, is to have a car(s) that get 30+ mpg in normal driving, yet still have the ability to perform when needed. Economy and performance are two things that, for now, cannot exist together.
True. Like I said earlier, the economy comes when the car is running off of lawnmower-like power (not 2 stroke :D) The performance comes later. Personally, I choose low end Tq matched with respectable high RPM power, that's why I'm more a fan of nissan fan :)
GTS Jeff
10-20-2002, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by [GaGe]
Haha.. Honda = torqueless beasts. what about the 1.5l crx hf? 62hp, 90lb-ft!! haha
Originally posted by Lead Injector
ah yes but "turbo" sounds much tougher than "vtec".
Seriously though I admire hondas vtec design, although I have one question- doesn't it damage the engine revving it that high? I know they redline at about 8000 but still...
(as you might of guessed I know little about hondas) an engine can rev high given that it is designed to receive proper cooling and given that its components are strong/light enough. an all aluminum design does wonders.
Originally posted by Ranger_X31
It's easy to get high hp out of an NA car too. All you have to do is hike up compression, and have displacement come from bore rather than stroke. This is exactly what honda has done. all the new honda engines are squared..
Originally posted by Ranger_X31
just under 4000 rpm?) the honda engine creates lawnmower like power here, but saves big time on gas. the whole point of vtec is to allow for maximal low-end torque while retaining high-end power. at least in some of their engines, such as the b16. in other engines, vtec has nothing to do with power delivery at all.
Originally posted by 5.9 R/T
Sorry but your off the mark. Efficient and VTEC cannot be said in the same sentance. Why? Simple physics really, to get X hp you need Y fuel and Z air. Yes honda motors are efficent but once you start using what power they give you (VTEC, iVTEC) they are no longer efficient machines. Honda's goal, IMO, is to have a car(s) that get 30+ mpg in normal driving, yet still have the ability to perform when needed. Economy and performance are two things that, for now, cannot exist together. heh actually i realized that after my original post. i guess in a sense, vtec is doing the same thing as a turbo...letting more air into the engine, but its just a different way. and as for economy and performance coexisting...u just wait for honda to put the dn-x drivetrain into production ;)
anyhoo, my big huge post on vtec is still yet to come.
Weapon_R
10-20-2002, 04:50 AM
Hondas are too fast and can't be bothered by a turbo or supercharger :confused:
rage2
10-20-2002, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R
dude, that point is totally invalid.
what is the point of having a turbo to produce extra power if you never hit boost?
the whole idea behind hondas engine designs is power and economy at the same time. in a turbo setup, u are going to end up with both as well, but not at the same time.
Drive an NSX hard and it'll still suck up the fuel. Drive it easy and it's fuel efficient. Simple physics my friend, to make power, you need fuel =). When I'm off boost, I make about 150rwhp (same as an average honda at full power), so I'm still making good power while conserving fuel.
With a turbo car, you can have big power when needed, or fuel economy during normal driving.
[GaGe]
10-20-2002, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Jeff TYPE R
what about the 1.5l crx hf? 62hp, 90lb-ft!! hahaa
hahaha :thumbsup:
Toms-Celica
10-20-2002, 10:24 AM
Ba, I find this whole discussion messed up. What I don't get is that if you are driving a Honda, the powers kick in in the higher RPM's range thus wreaking your fuel economy? Somebody want to show me the light? :dunno:
2000impreza
10-20-2002, 10:30 AM
simple as i can put it. at a low rpm you don't make much power/torque so you don't burn as much gas. at higher rpms you make more power/torque so you burn more gas.
cocoabrova
10-20-2002, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by 2000impreza
simple as i can put it. at a low rpm you don't make much power/torque so you don't burn as much gas. at higher rpms you make more power/torque so you burn more gas.
Quite simple:rolleyes: :rofl: When I drive around in VTEC most of the time, my gas mileage is about as good as a Mustang GT's. I don't bother resetting the odometer anymore after a fill-up:banghead: :burnout: :burnout:
Hollywood
10-20-2002, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by cocoabrova
Quite simple:rolleyes: :rofl: When I drive around in VTEC most of the time, my gas mileage is about as good as a Mustang GT's. I don't bother resetting the odometer anymore after a fill-up:banghead: :burnout: :burnout:
Hows this for mileage. I get around 250km per 60L tank on premium. You can say I'm running a little rich, and my turbo spools very early so it's easy to waste gas.
Originally posted by three.eighteen.
wasnt honda's earlier success in F1 attributed to their turbo engines?...or am i remember two different facts in 1? anyone help?
You are right... I think it was something like a 1.3L turbo running up to 18000 RPM
rage2
10-20-2002, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Fuji
You are right... I think it was something like a 1.3L turbo running up to 18000 RPM
and 50-60psi boost! Honda also had success with their Indycar V8 turbo motors, which are still in use this year. Next year they're out I believe when they switch to the 3.5L N/A formula to mimic IRL specs.
redline
10-20-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Fuji
You are right... I think it was something like a 1.3L turbo running up to 18000 RPM
1.5L turbo v6 the made about 1700hp and about 1200hp in race trim. Technology of the day limited them to about 14000-15000rpm. And the boost level was in the 80-90psi range
It has only been in the last couple of years that 18000rpm mark has been broken. also with BMW breaking 19000rpm in the last couple of races.
The CART engines are 2.65L v8 reving to about 16000rpm and are limited by CART to run about 16psi of boost. The first Honda CART engine that won was runnning about 75psi of boost. Then CART limited boost to control costs.
redline
10-20-2002, 04:47 PM
It is quite simple why honda does not make turbo engines. It is emissions. A turbo is a heat exchanger, a cat. needs heat to make it work. Therefore it is very difficult to make the cars pass cold start emissions with the turbo soaking up the heat that the cat. needs to work. This is also why companies like subie run a cat before the turbo and a couple after the turbo.
later...
Originally posted by redline
It is quite simple why honda does not make turbo engines. It is emissions. A turbo is a heat exchanger, a cat. needs heat to make it work. Therefore it is very difficult to make the cars pass cold start emissions with the turbo soaking up the heat that the cat. needs to work. This is also why companies like subie run a cat before the turbo and a couple after the turbo.
later...
Hey cool....I did not know that :thumbsup:
Yellow_Fly_Red
10-23-2002, 09:51 PM
No one ever questions why BMW don't make turbo-charged cars either...
even the M cars are N/A ....
hmmm......
Neither does Hyundia
on the other hand....
ALL SAAB cars are turbo-charged..!!!!
;)
three.eighteen.
10-23-2002, 10:04 PM
bmw made 1 turbo car as far as i know...and it was a race 2002, and i think bmw has a commitment to high power NA engines, McLaren chose the BMW V12 as their engine of choice as they decided from the start of the project that the F1 would have to be naturally aspirated
Alpine Autowerks
10-23-2002, 10:19 PM
Hyundai made a turbo too the Scoupe
Bmw also made the 745i and L7 models which were turbo.
A turbo engine is more efficient at making power because it recovers otherwise wasted heat and kinetic energy from the exhaust. This is shown when a turbo engine has a better BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) number. The number is pounds of fuel per hour per HP. and well done turbo engine has about 10% better BSFC than a NA or SC engine.
Isn't BMW working on a high powered Turbo Diesel engine? Maybe I'm thinking of MB
gpomp
10-24-2002, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Ranger_X31
Isn't BMW working on a high powered Turbo Diesel engine? Maybe I'm thinking of MB
Nah, It's MB... It's called the C30 AMG or something like that over in Europe.
GTS Jeff
10-24-2002, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Ranger_X31
Isn't BMW working on a high powered Turbo Diesel engine? Maybe I'm thinking of MB errr amg c30 cdi hatchback?
rage2
10-24-2002, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by three.eighteen.
bmw made 1 turbo car as far as i know...and it was a race 2002, and i think bmw has a commitment to high power NA engines, McLaren chose the BMW V12 as their engine of choice as they decided from the start of the project that the F1 would have to be naturally aspirated
McLaren actually choose Honda to create the engine for their F1 roadcar (McLaren was winning championships with HondaF1 engines at the time), but Honda declined citing there's no economic value to them, and BMW stepped up and made the motor.
three.eighteen.
10-24-2002, 08:32 AM
heh damn, guess that's the last time i trust speed vision documentary things :tongue:
my-donair-tc
08-22-2003, 05:14 PM
acauttly honda did make a turdo'd motor in thier seado linup but iam not sure if it was available in north america
buh_buh
08-22-2003, 05:41 PM
holy shit this thread is 10 months old!!
Seanith
08-22-2003, 06:06 PM
oh well..
like some others said, honda HAS made production turboed cars, but they were in japan and made less than 100hp :)
well i agree that honda's mission is fuel economy, but that doesnt fly with the S2000. Rated at 20mpg, the 4 cyl. S2000 is a mere 1mpg more than the c5 corvette, which is a v8.
s2000 - 20
c5 vette - 19
LOL, just to add to this, my cousin recently bought a teg, and he gets worse fuel economy in it than I did in my old truck. Keep the revs low, your honda will save you tons of money. Drive like a jackass and you'd be better off in a mustang gt :D
I think you guys have to look back at the market the Honda was engineered for, Japan...
Not alot of open road, high density living, and very expensive gas, although most Big H boys on this board would not admit it, but civic's preludes, accords, are in Japan, economy commuter cars..
VTEC was added to get the power numbers up there with the rest of the pack, and to compete in sales, HP sells cars, but unfortuantly turbo charged cars require more maintenance, and more expense that what most people would like to spend on a car that is used for back and forth work commutting, VTEC is nice way to get the peak numbers, and get some top end oomph on the freeway, but the majority of cars in Japan grid lock will never see VTEC revs, and hence they keep decent lowend power, and gas mileage..Bottom line they are engineered for economy and reliability, with the average owner in mind that performs very little maintenace on their cars, and thats why hondas are actually a very good car, with in those parameters.
Whenever I talk with a large group of Japanese people, the conversation always ends up revolving around cars, and some of the comments on our North American automotive tastes and habits from Japanese people are hilarious..
Some of the questions, are with such open country, why such low speed limits, whats with the modified honda's, why so few high power cars being driven with such cheap gas, why do we like Subaru's( I guess they are not to popular even in Japan with the youth)...
At import showoff, my GF asked me why people would do that to a family car when we walked by some of the honda's, now not all hondas are seen as pedestrian, however I think thats the reasoning for the Acura badging on the NSX and other top end honda products, to differentiate in the market the difference between the economy pack and performacne pack with in the Marque, in the North American market, Honda probably realised that the name honda carried a certain stigma with it in terms of performance, I am really suprised the S2000 doesn't have an A on it... Would you pay 80k for a car that shared the same name as your lawnmower,, um no..
*edited to spell VTEC properly to avoid ridicule*
Akagi Redsuns
08-23-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Maxt
snip.........Would you pay 80k for a car that shared the same name as your lawnmower,, um no..
Which is why we have the upscale Japanese names for the higher priced cars, only in North America. Can't be buying a 80K Toyota...ewww, but a 80K Lexus...right on! I can drive it to my country club and be seen it. Odd isn't it? Too bad Mazda's upscale division got axed, would have been interesting to see what Mazda would have brought over....3-rotor Cosmo?
Moonracer
08-23-2003, 10:13 AM
Think back to the late 80's early 90's when Honda owned F-1, they won, if I remember correctly, 4 championships in 5 years. Honda has always been about performance and racing besides bringing cheap economy cars to the public. They have to make lots of money to keep the race programs going as well as the technology for it.
PS: just for the record I would pay 80K for the big "H" any day if I had the money of course.
syeve
08-23-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Maxt
I think you guys have to look back at the market the Honda was engineered for, Japan...
Not alot of open road, high density living, and very expensive gas, although most Big H boys on this board would not admit it, but civic's preludes, accords, are in Japan, economy commuter cars..
*edited to spell VTEC properly to avoid ridicule*
I dont diagree with you BUT...that WAS honda...forget 20 years ago, forget 10 years ago...Honda's biggest market is NorthAmerica...they WERE engineered for Japan, they are now more geared to our market and their product proves it...It is true that Mazda, Toyota HAD the performance japanese market all tied up 10 years ago..BUT, what happened???? Look at today, honda acura...look at Subaru (once viewed as a "economical" car company)...what does toyota or mazda have in north america ( i dont care what they make in japan, I cant buy them) that can come even close to the STi? Dont say the RX-8 because it cant...in any way. What does Toyota or Mazda have that can compete with the RSX-S...for 30k? dont say the MP3 or whtever, cause I test drove it, and although it was nice, its not on the same level as the RSX...I really like mazda and toyota, my GF drivces an IS300 and I love it to death, but you have to get a 7 year old car to get anything good (supra, RX-7, Mr2), IMO of course...it would of course be a different story if we could get all the JDM cars..but the fact is, we cant.
StrokeD z
08-23-2003, 12:02 PM
how come honda doesnt turbo there cars=
thats why i drive a VOLKSVAGEN
ben and F.D. dont you agree:thumbsup:
Akagi Redsuns
08-23-2003, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by syeve
snip.... What does Toyota or Mazda have that can compete with the RSX-S...for 30k? dont say the MP3 or whtever, cause I test drove it, and although it was nice, its not on the same level as the RSX........snip
How about the new MazdaSpeed Protege turbo? I think it competes, it may be down in horsepower, but performance wise I think it's up there, along with the Celica GT-S (too bad Toyota engineers need to learn about gear ratios...too brutal). These two cars along with others like (VW 1.8T Jetta/Golf,SVT Focus...etc) are more than ample competition for the RSX...it doesn't have the sporty FWD market to itself you know.
syeve
08-23-2003, 12:31 PM
ya, I have driven the mazda turbo...theres no doubt it is cool, but compared to how badly mazda use to beat honda in the performance area...I want to make it clear, Im NOT flaming...all I am saying is that Honda is much more competitive than it was even 5 years ago...with cars like the civic Sir and the RSX-S, I believe they are shedding the "economy car company" image...I dont want to start a this car vs. that car...just trying to make a point
Vtec shmetec whatever..
I didn't even want to bring up Mazda in this at all, the last decent concept they came up with IMHO is the miata...The FD Rx-7 is a killer car, as long as you ditch the Mazda electronics, and engine controls... The biggest mistake Mazda made with the RX-7 was not having a non turbo version of the 3rd gen..
I really think Mazda has gone downhill with Ford ownership and influence..
I think if Honda was totally geared to our performance market, we wouldn't have the j-spec engine import market we have now, it seems the j-spec cars that honda makes, get hotter engines than we do here..
Honda has filled a market niche here that opened up in 1972, and the domestics basically have shifted their production to compete with them... In fact the market that made Honda in North America has gone from being a portion, to becoming the car market period, as gas, insurance and parking become more and mor expensive, our market is starting to emulate that of Japan, back to where the honda was born and raised and thus its success..
Its our market that killed the Japanese super car though, those with the money to run those cars, discovered Suv's, although Supras, rx-7's and 300z's are the shit now, back in 1994-95, people were trading in their leather open palmed gloves and serrengettis for hiking boots and pathfinders faster than you could say ambesol... And most of those people have stayed SUV owners, or god forbid gotten "hybrid" suv/cars to be fashionable.. You can drive the suv year round...
Which is why we have the upscale Japanese names for the higher priced cars, only in North America. Can't be buying a 80K Toyota...ewww, but a 80K Lexus...right on! I can drive it to my country club and be seen it. Odd isn't it? Too bad Mazda's upscale division got axed, would have been interesting to see what Mazda would have brought over....3-rotor Cosmo?
Yeah who knows....most likely with one more than one rotary model on the showroom floor, the dealer support and competency level would have been much higher for the 13b rew and the 20brew...
Maxt
actually I agreed to what maxt is saying, SUV almost killed sports/performance car. just look at the dispearance of 300z, 240sx, Rx-7, Supra, Corrado, and Camero to get an idea.....(at one point all car manufacture had a least one sports car in its line up)....
Maybe I am wrong for saying this, but I think we should thank FF and various other action movies for promoting and bring back the sports/performance car......
xviper
08-23-2003, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by hjr
well i agree that honda's mission is fuel economy, but that doesnt fly with the S2000. Rated at 20mpg, the 4 cyl. S2000 is a mere 1mpg more than the c5 corvette, which is a v8.
s2000 - 20
c5 vette - 19
You can't always believe these "ratings". When my S2000 was bone stock, I could achieve a best highway mileage of 39.9 miles per Canadian gallon (28 city). When I had my Vette ZR-1, the best highway mileage was 27 (14 city).
Currently, in city driving with intercooled S/C and 4.44 gears, I get 22. I doubt a C5 will get anywhere near this city driving.
Originally posted by three.eighteen.
wasnt honda's earlier success in F1 attributed to their turbo engines?...or am i remember two different facts in 1? anyone help?
Little off-topic, but the Bar-Honda F1 car that Jacques Villeneuve drives is a real piece of shit. Doesn't Honda feel ashamed?
Originally posted by KLCC
actually I agreed to what maxt is saying, SUV almost killed sports/performance car. just look at the dispearance of 300z, 240sx, Rx-7, Supra, Corrado, and Camero to get an idea.....(at one point all car manufacture had a least one sports car in its line up)....
Maybe I am wrong for saying this, but I think we should thank FF and various other action movies for promoting and bring back the sports/performance car......
I agree with Maxt as well. North America and it's SUVs :rolleyes: And you're not wrong in saying F&F had some good influences, despite the bad ones.
Ekliptix
08-24-2003, 02:26 PM
I'll post this for fun
http://www.legacytuning.com/tt1.8gsr.jpg
Honda doesn't have Turbo cars because Turbo doesn't equal longevity. Any type of boost; turbo, supercharger or NOS shortens the life of the engine.
Originally posted by Kato
Honda doesn't have Turbo cars because Turbo doesn't equal longevity. Any type of boost; turbo, supercharger or NOS shortens the life of the engine.
High compression ratio and high revs also stress an engine, the answer is nothing more complex than beefing up internals, which is exactly what companies do when putting FI on one of thier own NA engines.
Turbo not equaling longevity for the engine? Only if the design is bad. Look at turbo diesel engines, they have boost and near 20:1 CRs, but parts in turbo diesel cars are damn beefy, thats why you see tons of VW and MB td's with well over 300,000 km without a rebuild.
Manguish
08-25-2003, 04:14 AM
Originally posted by MR8
Why has honda never made a turbo prodution car, just about every other company has... :dunno:
Haven`t read all this thread, but just incase this ain`t been said.....
Honda DID make a turbo car. It was called the CITY.
Use google.
http://www.cityturbo.com/
Illusionsir
08-25-2003, 04:50 AM
Originally posted by Maxt
VTEC was added to get the power numbers up there with the rest of the pack..
Not quite, it was originally designed for (you guessed it) Fuel Economy.
well put Manguish, i was trying to find info on the city as well. lol i just couldnt remember what it was called, but i remember hearing about the turbo honda!
Ebbsvette
08-25-2003, 11:51 AM
bah, gasmilage. I get 9 mpg with my vette right now, heh.
It sucks up some gas, thats y i got a 2001 grand am se. Gotta love 38mpg :thumbsup:
Originally posted by Illusionsir
Not quite, it was originally designed for (you guessed it) Fuel Economy.
well put Manguish, i was trying to find info on the city as well. lol i just couldnt remember what it was called, but i remember hearing about the turbo honda!
Actually I would argue the Honda was already designed for fuel economy, the variable valve timing, is a way of squeezing more power out of an engine that is timed for fuel economy to begin with...Maxt
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.4 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.