Got Money. Need shop
- Thread starter EDRNSXM3R1
- Start date
I won't waste my time with a full response to your silly rants, but I will summarize. I'm not sticking up blindly for the NSX. It is a combination of compromises like anything else, including bikes. Your precious cycles are intentionally built with a very difference balance of those compromises. They aren't restricted to the same environmental standards. They don't need a lot of torque to haul around all the smog, safety and comfort equipment, not to mention the chassis, body, etc. Buyers don't expect to pull away smoothly from a near stop in second gear without effort, or get decent gas mileage. And they don't expect 200k+ miles from the engine internals. I suspect they also don't give up as much power in the drive train so comparing wheel HP is unrealistic. The S2000 was creating 120 HP/Liter and has been universally panned for being torqueless. This year they increased displacement and decreased redline. But then, they live in the real world. If the NSX was nothing more than an engine and a couple wheels they might spend more time polishing ports and such, again, the real world means recognizing diminishing returns and knowing where to compromise. By any educated estimation they did a pretty good job 15 years ago. There are better now because someone will always try to top the best, but that doesn’t mean we’ll all end up with motorcycle engines in our cars.
But if you really insist on comparing apples and oranges, look at the power output of model aircraft engines and explain to me why your cycles are so lame.
I generally try not to get personal, but your attitude in general, like your initial post, comes across as rather childish. You could be a world champion and it wouldn't change your myopic view of automotive technology.
But if you really insist on comparing apples and oranges, look at the power output of model aircraft engines and explain to me why your cycles are so lame.
I generally try not to get personal, but your attitude in general, like your initial post, comes across as rather childish. You could be a world champion and it wouldn't change your myopic view of automotive technology.
EDRNSXM3R1 said:
BTW, that seemed to be the essential core of your post, and the focus of my initial response. As such there really wasn’t any need to elaborate because your statement completely ignored basic physics. If you didn’t really mean to suggest that if the NSX engine was any good then 600 rwhp should be easily attained, then perhaps you should have been more clear. Or should I say, less clear? It was pretty clear to me.
I'm through now. I won't get into a war of words on such a pointless topic.
sjs said:
LOL. please lets agree. Ill stop talking about cars, you stop trying to talk about bikes since you really know zero about them. So, the motorcycle engines are not designed to carry smog stuff? hmm. we have evap cans, hoses, pair(pvc) valves, and yep even cats in the muffler. secondly, they are not expected to get good gas mileage? ok, so what does your nsx get? mine get 16, but a bone stock R6 gets 45, a BUILT R6 gets 30-32. so guess your wrong on that as well. buyers dont expect to have there bikes pull away from stops smoothly? have you even riden a modern bike? I only WISH i could get either of my cars to have as smooth and light of a clutch pull (remember we have to use our hands! not whole leg), not too mention most new bikes come with back tq limter (slipper) clutch's which makes downshifting at high rpm extremely smooth. not suppossed to go 200k miles? hmm, not too many nsx do that as well. but i have several customers bikes that are well over 100k and doing fine. all a matter of owner maintance. just like a car.
look, i was not trying to start a fcuking arguement. all i was saying is that when i had a spare set of nsx heads that i was gonna do some work on, i was amazed at the poor castings, the valves were not cocentrict, the included valve angle was surprisingly steep (maybe for more room for the vtec?) and overall just very rough. the nsx is a great car. i LOVE mine, i brag about it all the time. your right, bikes are cars are different in terms of goals. that was my point. that if acura gave you REAL 2006 engine technology there is NO reason why someone could not have a nice 3.6l v6 and spin it to 10,000rpm (still over HALF of F1) and it would be a blast to drive!
all i was starting to say was i love reading on the internet how guys are sooo concerned with peak hp numbers when no one here drives at 7,800-8000rpm all day long. also i was just saying i find it funny how yes, the nsx is years ahead of its time, but even nowadays, seems like car manf. are getting lazier and putting in less r/d work and having killer engines.
sorry i pee'd in your cheerios. Ill drop it. you win. the nsx is the best. bikes are a joke.
You didn't pee in my cheerios. I have no great allegiance to the NSX and could criticize more than you even know about it. That's not the point, though you seem hung up on making it so. But you don’t have to try to start an argument. Talk enough trash in public and someone should call you on it. Racing season is over so I have a bit more time to burn, too bad there isn’t a better topic to spend it on.
You still compare apples and oranges and demonstrate a serious lack of either knowledge or logic or both. Comparing absolute MPG numbers between a bike and a car? Are you serious? The point, which you apparently missed, is that high mileage is not a selling point on super bikes, and AFAIK not regulated via CAFE like cars. So they focus more on power and less on MPG. That they don’t get much more than you quote is proof enough of that given their size. I also never said that there are no emissions controls on bikes, but they are not in the same league as cars. And you totally miss the point about smooth takeoff. I said in 2nd gear BTW, but more importantly, you can't compare a bike to a car here either. My whole damn point on that topic is that due to extremely low total lbs/cc, a bike engine does not need to be designed for high torque to achieve smooth and rapid takeoff. Again your own statements only support my point, not refute it. Dude, cars aren't bikes, and if you think you can do that much better than the Japanese and Italians at producing reliable HP that suits market demands then you are either delusional or in the wrong business.
You still compare apples and oranges and demonstrate a serious lack of either knowledge or logic or both. Comparing absolute MPG numbers between a bike and a car? Are you serious? The point, which you apparently missed, is that high mileage is not a selling point on super bikes, and AFAIK not regulated via CAFE like cars. So they focus more on power and less on MPG. That they don’t get much more than you quote is proof enough of that given their size. I also never said that there are no emissions controls on bikes, but they are not in the same league as cars. And you totally miss the point about smooth takeoff. I said in 2nd gear BTW, but more importantly, you can't compare a bike to a car here either. My whole damn point on that topic is that due to extremely low total lbs/cc, a bike engine does not need to be designed for high torque to achieve smooth and rapid takeoff. Again your own statements only support my point, not refute it. Dude, cars aren't bikes, and if you think you can do that much better than the Japanese and Italians at producing reliable HP that suits market demands then you are either delusional or in the wrong business.
Consider yourself fortunate. I have a shop, but need money :redface:
Since we are talking apples to oranges and $5000 represents 63% of the value of the bike. If I was to take 63% of a new NSX and spend it on upgrades I'm betting you would get similiar results.
nsxxtreme said:
Now this makes sense! :biggrin:
thanks. Ill look him up. Im pretty much set for what i need/want. and NO it is not even 400 rwhp. so, should be ok, and fun still. If not, ill hop on the bike to get my fix 
J/K
J/K
EDRNSXM3R1 said:thanks. Ill look him up. Im pretty much set for what i need/want. and NO it is not even 400 rwhp. so, should be ok, and fun still. If not, ill hop on the bike to get my fix
So what did you decide to get? Because that pretty much eliminates all of the SC and Turbos out there.. (Crank HP)
I like the bikes as well, Mine have saved my sanity over the past 2 years.. I could get on abd ride and be satisfied.
Now I need a faster bike now that I have driven my car...:smile:
Most of the bikes are just too damned underpowered...:smile:
BBeckert, I need to borrow your Busa...
len3.8 said:
That is one sick bike...500+ rwhp is MENTAL!
Our dear Ben does have quite an affliction.
Similar threads
