Is the engine in the NA2 NSX-R different from the "base" 3.2L V6

[NSXGMS]

Re: reality check

You really believe the ECU is exactly the same? Tuning changes could easily account for the bulk of the hp difference people have seen.

I have not built as many nsx motors as you obviously have, but the ones I have seen had very good tolerances for a production motor. If you consider b&b to be getting everything to the best production specification, I have a hard time seeing a 40hp increase. If they go well past spec and lighten parts past the normal range, they might get a bigger chunk of that.

The statement that a motor is either b&b'd or not does not really make sense. When you b&b a motor, you set tighter variances than a production build, but there are still variances and what they are is up to the builder. There is no set standard. What constitutes variance in balanced pistons? A gram? Half a gram? A quarter gram? An eighth? I generally use a quarter gram as the spec, but others choose a different variance and that does not mean their motor is somehow not b&b'd - just that they used a different variance.

The suggestion that a different tune can result in consistent, measurable power increases in an NSX has been discredited long ago. Tuners have been showing for years and years that the stock universal tune on the NSX is about as good as it gets. Not even stand-alone EM can squeeze out any kind substantial hp from a stock NSX motor. So while the NSX-R tune may be different it's by virtue of the fact the engine is different. NSX-R tuning on an OEM NSX would not consistently and measurably increase power. Maybe 1 or 2 hp at most since that's about how much the expert tuners have been able to coax out of a stock NSX--and that's not even on all the NSXs they attempt it on. Some NSXs still show zero gain when tuning is tweaked to the max.

Also, 10% gain in whp for an NSX is around 25, not 40. Not sure where 40 came from...a 40 hp gain is not supported by the NSX community when it comes to a NSX motor B & B.

The statement that it's either B & B or not means that any non-B & B NSX engine is never going to have tolerances as close as a properly B & B NSX motor. Again, some stock motors are closer to the ideal than others, but not even the tightest stock NSX motor is going to produce as much hp as a B & B NSX motor built by Honda or anyone else that knows what they're doing. Use low standards and of course it won't improve efficiency and/or power.

 

[David]

Re: reality check

Not sure where 40 came from...a 40 hp gain is not supported by the NSX community when it comes to a NSX motor B & B.

It came from this thread.

330 (claim from Procar for R motor) - 290 = 40

 

[NSXGMS]

Re: reality check

It came from this thread.

330 (claim from Procar for R motor) - 290 = 40

As far as I understand that's well beyond the expected norm for a B & B on an average NSX motor, even a weak one from the factory. I suppose if the motor that came from the factory was really a turd one could squeeze out 15% or ~40 more hp from a B & B but that motor would really have to be one of the poorest built to come out of the factory.

Plus, sounds like bhp, not whp so I'm not sure how he's measuring that. 330 is very a very ambitious claim indeed. No stock internals NA NSX I have ever seen has close to 330 whp. There's no dyno in that Procar ad that I can see. Perhaps non-stock internals were sent to Honda with that engine to rebuild?

 

[ozone]

I thought the theory was the change in motors mid-2002, not all of 2002? If this is unsubstantiated, is there any reason to purchase a 2003 over a 2002 (other than it being one year newer)?

 

[NSXGMS]

I thought the theory was the change in motors mid-2002, not all of 2002? If this is unsubstantiated, is there any reason to purchase a 2003 over a 2002 (other than it being one year newer)?

I had heard it was as early as mid-late 02 and as late as mid-03.

As I understand it a 2002 might have it, a 2003 would be very likely to have it and an 04+ would definitely have it--if the theory is correct.

 

[David]

Re: reality check

As far as I understand that's well beyond the expected norm for a B & B on an average NSX moto

Those are the kinds of numbers that make me suspicious that the only difference is a b&b. If it was 10hp, then maybe. Add a more aggressive ECU to the b&b + lighter clutch and you are starting to get into the plausible range.

I have only modified the tune on a stock car once and it was just to play around and see how much room there was. An AFC (fuel trim only) picked up about 4hp across most of the power band after 20 min. or so of messing around, so pushing the timing would have added a bit on top of that. But, a one car dyno session is hardly a projectable sample.

 

[BD]

Don't forget, in the real NA2 Type R, you still have a more aggressive ECU and if I read an old article correctly, the throttle was changed slightly, some thing in the harness.

EVO magazine of GB mentioned an educated guess of 310 plus HP in the Type R.

As for the picture posted in #60, that is the room where NSX-R engine is assembled, by same techs. I can't see how they will blue print only the Type R motor if they're all assembled in the same area.

 

[greenberet]

This is only one data point, but at the NSX dyno day at TDI, the 2005 NSX put out less power than either the 1997 or the 1998.

Since our engines are built by hand anyhow, it would be easy to build some engines with closer tolerances than others. I understand that the people in the factory must have had time on their hands due to the dropping sales of the NSX, and it would make sense for them to use that time to build every engine as carefully as a Type-R. But at the dyno day in England, the engines in the later regular NA2s (no Type-Rs participated) didn't produce any more power than the engines in the earlier NA2s.

If the engine in a standard late NA2 puts out significantly more horsepower than the engines in early NA2s on the same dyno on the same day, that engine is probably a freak (Vance - this means you), judging by the results of the dyno day.

Now as to how many horsepower you can really gain if you balance and blueprint the engine: 27 hp (10%) would be great. Can anyone actually confirm that with dyno tests?

 

[NSXGMS]

Don't forget, in the real NA2 Type R, you still have a more aggressive ECU and if I read an old article correctly, the throttle was changed slightly, some thing in the harness.

EVO magazine of GB mentioned an educated guess of 310 plus HP in the Type R.

As for the picture posted in #60, that is the room where NSX-R engine is assembled, by same techs. I can't see how they will blue print only the Type R motor if they're all assembled in the same area.

True, but the beefed up tuning is dealing with a beefed up engine. Slapping Type-R tuning on an OEM NSX engine won't necessarily get you results. The Type-R tuning is designed for the Type-R engine.

310 bhp or 270-280 whp is just about exactly what I would expect from a B & B NSX motor. 5-10% more hp. I'm sure the Type-R tuning easily contributes a couple hp to the cause and obviously adds to the efficiency of that motor.

And your assertion that all the engines being assembled in the same way by the same techs in the same room will be the same is very logical and makes a lot of sense but it's far from proof. It's just a theory. It's a good theory, but still a theory nonetheless. I've seen dyno evidence both ways, more so supporting the lack of a B & B in the OEM NSXs in the last year or so. Short of a large body of dyno evidence only statements by either the NSX engine techs themselves or Honda can confirm or deny this theory. Certainly Honda doesn't care about the 20 people who want to know so our only hope is to have someone interview one of the NSX engine techs.

Still doesn't account for your beast of a motor. :biggrin:

 

[satx]

more than likely the reason that people think the NSX-R has more power is due to the weight reduction combined with the gearing change. Blueprinting an engine is done for durability reasons not for power. Anyone who has a car with the rear end ratio swapped can attest to having a car that "feels" much more powerful.


Could "blueprinting" a 290HP engine result in a 25-30HP gain? HIGHLY unlikely unless the bottom end was setup very loose (this would result in an engine that would last ~20k miles.....less under racing conditions).

 

[stuntman]

The NSX-R is a Unicorn.



...It dosn't exist! :wink:

 

[TANTO]

Fun thread, re-read this getting ready for my 3.2 mild build so had to put in my thoughts - I never for a minute believed there were any internal changes in these engines whether it's the late 02's or the early R's. Certainly no porting. The ECU and different fuel certainly could be an issue. I suspect that the early R's got an additional manual check of journal sizes and piston and rod weights just to make sure an inferior engine didn't slip by and embarress the suits, or perhaps were actually rear wheel dynoed to a strict standard. If it didn't dyno right, they put that engine in one of OUR cars he-he. B&B'ing a Honda will in no way add more than a HP or two, if that. Actually poor tolerance engines (that are little loose) will likely make a bit MORE power, albiet shorter life. At least thats what old dirt track race engine builders contend and my personal experience with burning up Kart engines (of course rich/lean issues abound there tempering my point). Don't we all feel silly with the introduction of the powerhouse C8? Our NA NSX's are simply large and VERY fun street go-karts.