Good find!
I am relieved/excited to see this making a public debut this month. I was wondering if they ran into some deal breaker that was unforseen.
Only 67 hp from three electric motors is not much but I would guess the NSX would have more.
Hybrid Acura NSX will be priced to rival Porsche 911 (around $105,000)
- Thread starter Dhalsim
- Start date
Good find!
I am relieved/excited to see this making a public debut this month. I was wondering if they ran into some deal breaker that was unforseen.
Only 67 hp from three electric motors is not much but I would guess the NSX would have more.
I appreciate the honesty..... not the attitude of meh......
"As with the original, the eventual power figure won’t grab headlines"
"As with the original, the eventual power figure won’t grab headlines"
Is anyone making a mid-engine sedan? What would be the advantage of a mid-engine sedan?
Do you think a 290 hp C32B would only suffer a 10 hp driveline loss and end up with 280 rwhp?
What does your research suggest is the driveline loss for a C32B and a C30A?
Last edited:
I was half joking about the mid-engine Sedan if you couldn't tell lol. It would be a very cool/novel setup though.
I think it's a combination of underrated power from Honda and very efficient drivetrain, but I don't truly believe the power loss to the wheels is around 10% or less.
Honda had to be underrating it but what do you think it's true HP number should've been given the dyno's?
Typical drivetrain losses for a stock NSX are around 11 percent. That's about as good as just about any production car.
I think the C30A design was ultimately massaged to put out as close to 300 hp as possible and not the mandated 280 PS. Honda saw that the 300ZX which went to production one year earlier makes 300 HP and everyone after that was going to follow suit with their own twin turbo setup. So they released the NSX a year after with the modestly rated 270 HP, but the true flywheel hp was a bit higher than claimed.
My rationale for this stems from the SW20 MR2 Turbo. Again, same setup, transaxle mid-engine RWD. The highest WHP I've seen a bone stock USDM Turbo MR2 with ~7 psi is ~165 whp. Rated flywheel is 200 hp, so that is about the typical ~18% drivetrain loss. Yamaha AND Toyota collaborated on most of the Sports cars built for Toyota, and this was the best they both could muster. And Yamaha builds bikes that compete with the big boys and supplied engines for F1 also.
More reference points, the 300ZX typically dynos 245 whp. 245 stacked against 300 is ~19% drivetrain loss. The few charts I've seen for the MK4 Supra dynos are about 260 whp, which sounds about right for a 320 hp car. The RB26DETT swapped in a 240SX dynoed about 245-250 whp if I'm not mistaken and I think there may have been a mod or two.
So I'm not saying Honda is not efficient with their drivetrain, but it's something to consider when everyone else was losing the typical 18% and Honda is magically at 11-12%, consistently at that. I think it's a smart move to underrate your engines though. Even the glorious 458, with the DCT tranny is losing over 20% at the wheels...
I think Motor Trend or one of those main car magazines did a dyno test and determined that the NSX had a 14% drivetrain loss, which is no surprise considering that there is no driveshaft to add to the parastatic loss.
I would like to read this article - know the actual article/source? Good luck to anyone trying to estimate transmission/transaxle/gearbox losses with just one number.
Fortunately for once I can say here from lots of direct experience - speed, input torque, oil temperature, oil level, oil type, gear selection, age & break-in/wear-in, and even manufacturing variation & assembly variation etc., can affect efficiency &/or % loss measurements a lot. In other words, a single number for transmission/drivetrain loss makes little sense only under specific conditions unfortunately, and single % efficiencies w/o some tolerance are only "true" in controlled laboratories. It was impossible to assign an automatic transmission a single efficiency number no matter how hard the program & marketing guys screamed for one from us because of the many different operation variables there are - was especially hard for auto transmissions because of the wildly varying operating conditions of the torque converter and the many various parasitic loss variations from all the different combinations of rotating clutchpacks & drums & planetary gears & seals that vary by gear selection, in addition to the variation of effic. across different rotating speeds, torques, oil temperature/viscosity, etc... For a manual trans car running at specific conditions, like WOT while trying to measure max Hp or Max torque, maybe a single % number could be used with some confidence but even then it should have some tolerance. Anyway. Here's one time I'm not opinionating but instead barfing out info based on actual experience. Not trying to rain on any parade or squash discussion, but just suggesting: it's worth one's investigating/verifying further that using a single % effic number for a transmission doesn't hold much water and unfortunately might not be as useful a tool as one would hope.
Last edited:
Let's not be naive enough to forget the ubiquitous "Dealer Additions" or "Market Adjustment" line item(s) on the window sticker...with a comlimentary trial size of AstroGlide... Grrrrrr...
I would like to read this article - know the actual article/source? Good luck to anyone trying to estimate transmission/transaxle/gearbox losses with just one number.
Anyway. Here's one time I'm not opinionating but instead barfing out info based on actual experience. Not trying to rain on any parade or squash discussion, but just suggesting: it's worth one's investigating/verifying further that using a single % effic number for a transmission doesn't hold much water and unfortunately might not be as useful a tool as one would hope.
<iframe width="640" height="390" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/QDVbjX7EVhQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
I'm confident that by using Torco or Amsoil synthetic tranny oil the drivetrain loss is more like 13% :tongue:
I'm sure you're right. I'd also think that adding 2x as much oil as needed will not only double the intervals between oil changes but also cut the losses in half to 6.5%. Just stands to reason.
Similar threads
- Locked
