No V8 next generation NSX

[Jimbo]

Yeah, but the NSX still needs more power.

And although I like the S2000...it needs more torque. And while I'm on this soapbox...I'd like to see any future NSX to be tuned with just a bit more torque too.

350hp - 375hp (30% increase) from a i-VTEC V6 is fine but I'd like to see a 40% increase in torque.

-Jim

 

[nsxtasy]

350hp - 375hp (30% increase) from a i-VTEC V6 is fine but I'd like to see a 40% increase in torque.

I'd like to see a 40% increase in horsepower, which would give it as much as the Z06.

I don't think 350 hp is enough for supercar status these days.

 

[pok8rok8]

I dont know about you guys but I heard way back last year that Acura was on the selling block to GM. I dont know how this came about.....but is this even true. And maybe thats why they are not making the new nsx for now.

I also believe that if you are patient enough....you will be rewarded....well I hope we do....

Mike

 

[naaman]

Yeah, but the NSX still needs more power.

And although I like the S2000...it needs more torque. And while I'm on this soapbox...I'd like to see any future NSX to be tuned with just a bit more torque too.

350hp - 375hp (30% increase) from a i-VTEC V6 is fine but I'd like to see a 40% increase in torque.

-Jim

Why i-VTEC? Isn't "regular" VTEC better? (I thought iVTEC only applied to the intake vlaves, whereas VTEC adjusts both intake and exhaust).

The S2000s engine makes 153 lb.ft, yet it gets to 60 in 5.5 sec. That's as fast as a 320HP Camaro SS. Why does it "need" more torque?

As far as the NSX "needing" more power... maybe... but speed that comes from other sources (like weight reduction, drivetrain upgrades, etc) is more reliable and more controllable, and seems to be more in keeping with the "spirit" of the NSX. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see the engine deliver a bigger punch (especially on the low end, maybe 260 lb.ft.), but given a choice between a more powerful engine or a less burdeoned one (i.e. free-er revving, less drivetrain losses, etc), I'd choose the latter.

I guess it's the NSX's finesse that appeals to me more than many of its other performance characteristics. I guess that may make me an oddball around here...

 

[huckster]

i would like to see a heavy pig of a car about 6kcurb weight with 24 cylinders putting out 2000HP with bench seats that convert to beds. And i want it to be green, running on methanated pig poop. We can name it "HOGzilla". CORNering will be optional.

 

[NetViper]

Why i-VTEC? Isn't "regular" VTEC better? (I thought iVTEC only applied to the intake vlaves, whereas VTEC adjusts both intake and exhaust).
...

I think you have that backwards... I-VTEC does both..


As far as power... why not put BMW's 3.2 L engine in the NSX!! Its the same size and makes WAY more power... infact, I think that is the only engine I have seen that is 3.2 L that makes more power than the NSX NA. I think the NSX would HAUL with that engine!

 

[Roadrunner]

Huckster, you must be talking about GM's new H2!!
6700 lbs of gas guzzling soccer mom hauling big box of a truck that uses a GM Yukon chassis instead of the off road Hummer we used to respect.
And it's selling around here like hotcakes! They know what women like.): JMHO

 

[Roadrunner]

On the NSX engine topic.
I keep thinking if they only could/would mate two S2K 2.0 liters together we could get one hell of an 8 cyl. for the NSX in a small package.

 

[nsxtasy]

I dont know about you guys but I heard way back last year that Acura was on the selling block to GM. I dont know how this came about.....but is this even true.

No, that's not true. Not at all.

GM and Honda entered into a cooperative agreement regarding the purchase of Honda engines for certain GM vehicles, but nothing regarding the sale of the entire division or any change of ownership.

 

[akira3d]

Not going to think about it until it happens

I'm done with all of this speculation. I'm just going to wait, cross my fingers, and hope that, if there IS a next-gen NSX, it will fit our image of what the car should be and not what the general consumer wants...

 

[trumperZ06]

Only David vs. Goliath with the cars, why cant Honda make the Nsx top dog like they do with their racebikes? The new Moto Gp bike is making 230 hp now, it is an engineering marvel and has the most power of any racebike in the world. Honda is top dog when it comes to Ama Superbike and the World championship motorcycle roadracing, i wish they would make a 4-500 hp nsx because you will need at least that much to keep up in the next year or so. The baby Lambo has 500hp, the new 360 Modena replacement will have a v10 and closing in on 500hp, for Honda to compete with Ferrari and Lambo they will need a v-8, just my opinion of course.

Good post! Y'all are gonna need ~450 + hp. and the torque a high reving 4.0 liter V-8 produces to stay competitive!

Weight reduction gets $$$ EXPENSIVE $$$ once you go under 2900 lbs. for a car capable of speeds in excess of 150 MPH. You need mininium size and performance in : tires, brakes, tranny & rear end, suspension etc. etc. etc. as well as the amenities such as traction control, ABS, air conditioning etc. !!! That pretty much keeps your weight around 3000 lbs. with the best Engineering available today.

Sure looks like your gonna need a 4 liter V-8 to stay in the GAME!

 

[Juice]

What frustrates me is Honda is taking the Accord and CL/TL lines to much larger horsepower with both increased cylinders and increased displacement, but not in their sports cars. The only reason the V6 made it to the Accord was Honda was getting spanked in the freeway onramp and passing game by Toyota, Nissan and Ford. Now it is 240 horsepower sixes in a bunch of cars, while the RSX gets another 10, the Prelude goes away, and the NSX gets 20 six years ago. Even Audi has dropped it's nice twin turbo v6 in favor of a v8 in the S4.

It is funny how this gets mentioned. The fact that the Accord wound up with IS300-killing horsepower was done by accident. The powerplant had a few unknown variables that carried over from concept to production, and were large enough to alter the engine's performance greatly in the end. Goes to show that even Honda wizzards can't predict everything.

Futhermore, Honda tried to hide the fact that the new Accord produced so much horsepower. They realized the threat it reared against their own CL Types S (ala Acura badge) and tried to downplay the numbers that started showing up in MotorTrend and Car&Driver. Consequently, the CL is being rushed out of the manufacturing plants and will be killed by years end.

P.S.- I'm not sure what the word is on the new NSX (if any) but rumors are still flowing out of Home Base. Is there any cross over from new line-up to our beloved NSX? I don't know, but remember the DualNote? Think 4-wheel drive RL. Think HUGE HP gains in both 2004 TL (heard the interior is smokin) and a later RL.

Translation: If you don't know what's going on at Honda, you know exactly what they want you to know!

 

[topdaytrader]

My friend is a engineer at HONDA Motor. He told me the samething every year. That they won't make a new NSX or new engine for NSX.

 

[mlambert890]

He defeated himself by comparing a 2.0 liter engine to a 5.7 liter engine which only outpaces the smaller motor by about .2 sec in the quarter (that was his main argument: that Japanese cars were slow in the quarter mile...)

Old post, but I just noticed this. The S2000 is 2 seconds behind the Z06 in the 1/4, not .2 2 seconds is HUGE. That's such a massive difference it basically reverses this argument.

Like it or not, the Z06 will eat the S2000 alive in every way. Actually, the Z06 will best the NSX handily also. *IF* Honda decides to update the NSX, they'd better make beating the Z06 a *bare minimum* requirement.

 

[nsxtasy]

The S2000 is 2 seconds behind the Z06 in the 1/4, not .2

That figure was cited for the LS1 Corvette, not the Z06. The garden-variety 350 hp Corvette generally tests 0-60 around 4.8-5.0 seconds. Reported S2000 acceleration times vary but have been as quick as 5.2 seconds (Motor Trend 2/00). Thus it's quite possible that the S2000 acceleration times for 0-60 are only 0.2 second behind the regular Corvette, which does indeed have a 5.7 liter engine. However, the difference in 1/4 mile times tends to be somewhat larger, with the S2000 doing 13.8 (MT again) and the Corvette usually in the ~13.2 range - a difference of perhaps 0.6 second but not two seconds.

 

[nsxtasy]

They realized the threat it reared against their own CL Types S (ala Acura badge) and tried to downplay the numbers that started showing up in MotorTrend and Car&Driver. Consequently, the CL is being rushed out of the manufacturing plants and will be killed by years end.

You don't think the imminent death of the CL has more to do with drastically declining sales, with sales down last year by 36.4 percent (even before the new Accord was introduced) and sales so far this year down another 34.6 percent?

 

[SpankyPop]

I think you have that backwards... I-VTEC does both..


As far as power... why not put BMW's 3.2 L engine in the NSX!! Its the same size and makes WAY more power... infact, I think that is the only engine I have seen that is 3.2 L that makes more power than the NSX NA. I think the NSX would HAUL with that engine!

I-VTEC does everything that VTEC does (that is, two or more camshaft specs; one speced for lwoer rpm range, the other specd for higher RPM range) but it also adds camshaft timing. as in, it advances or retards the camshafts in relation to crank position. What does this do? It allows the powerband to be significantly broadened.


I think we are forgetting what moves cars here. Torque does. The more area under teh curve you have, the better. Peak horsepower is derived from torque

Horsepower = torque * RPM / 5252

The more toruqe you have higher in the RPM range, the more horsepower you get.

basically what I am saying is that a 3.5l v-6 with I-VTEC and slightly higher compression would decimate just about everything around, espically if mated to a 2700 lb car. And I-VTEC broadens teh torque curve, so naturally you would have more area "under the curve", so to speak, so more usable torque sooner.....a very good thing

Horsepower dosen't matter to me. Torque avalibility, mated to the proper gearbox does

 

[nsxtasy]

Torque and horsepower are both important as measures of acceleration - torque, because it is a measure of the force generated, and horsepower, because it encompasses the notion of the gearing through which the torque is transmitted to the road.

You can read a more detailed explanation here.

 

[Rubber Chicken]

torque, because it is a measure of the force generated

moment.

 

[Juice]

You don't think the imminent death of the CL has more to do with drastically declining sales, with sales down last year by 36.4 percent (even before the new Accord was introduced) and sales so far this year down another 34.6 percent?

Quite so. But I was told that after the Accord times were released, the dealerships couldn't move the CL despite numerous incentives. Most importantly, the "Honda" was not suposed to be stepping on "Acura's" toes. But you are right: imminent death.

 

[mlambert890]

That figure was cited for the LS1 Corvette, not the Z06. The garden-variety 350 hp Corvette generally tests 0-60 around 4.8-5.0 seconds. Reported S2000 acceleration times vary but have been as quick as 5.2 seconds (Motor Trend 2/00). Thus it's quite possible that the S2000 acceleration times for 0-60 are only 0.2 second behind the regular Corvette, which does indeed have a 5.7 liter engine. However, the difference in 1/4 mile times tends to be somewhat larger, with the S2000 doing 13.8 (MT again) and the Corvette usually in the ~13.2 range - a difference of perhaps 0.6 second but not two seconds.

His statement was clearly about the Z06. He started by saying "a friend was comparing the S2000 to the Z06". He was also specifically referring to 1/4 mile rather than 0-60. Typical 1/4 mile times for the S2k are in the 14 range. Typical Z06 times are low 12's and typical base C5 times are high 12's.

Line up a stock C5 and a stock S2000 at any drag strip with roughly equivalent drivers (same RT) and I'd put money on the C5 putting up at least a 1.5 second quicker ET and trapping much higher.

Further muddying that point above is that it is also based on the assumption that OHC motors actually ARE superior to pushrod designs. They are not. It is a combination of ignorance and arrogance that leads most import fanatics to buy into the "Japan uses superior OHC technology" argument. Both designs are nearly equally old and pushrods do offer certain real advantages.

Lastly, Japanese cars ARE slow in the 1/4. ALL of the Japanese powerhouses are balls slow in a straight line. It's only when the aftermarket comes into play and people push insane air through motors like the 2JZGE and RB26DETT that the Japanese supercars assert themselves.

Stock Vipers, Vettes and Mustangs really do whip any Japanese production car in the 1/4.

Don't get me wrong, I love my X (hell, I bought a new one!), but numbers are what they are. No sense kidding ourselves...

 

[Xcite50]

Spookyp,

don't forget that they have a HP limit in Japan hence they can not produce cars that are like Vipers and Vettes here. Talking about pushing air through Japanese cars to make them fast, then you should talk about V10 or V8 Vs V6 and 4. S2000 2L Vs Vettes V8 5.7L hmmmmmm gezzzzz and all natural aspirated, you can guess the out come right???. So it all depends on what you're comparing, but BE fair.

 

[nsxtasy]

His statement was clearly about the Z06.

Nope. The paragraph that mentions the .2 second mentions only a 5.7-liter engine, not the Z06.

He was also specifically referring to 1/4 mile rather than 0-60.

True - but perhaps he was confusing the two stats, don't you think?

Typical 1/4 mile times for the S2k are in the 14 range.

13.8. Source: Motor Trend, February 2000.

typical base C5 times are high 12's.

13.2. Source: Car and Driver, September 1999.
13.1. Source: Motor Trend, March 2001.

Line up a stock C5 and a stock S2000 at any drag strip with roughly equivalent drivers (same RT) and I'd put money on the C5 putting up at least a 1.5 second quicker ET and trapping much higher.

I'll take that bet against you. Sounds like easy money.

 

[Juice]

Spookyp,

don't forget that they have a HP limit in Japan hence they can not produce cars that are like Vipers and Vettes here.

I may be wrong, but I thought that the gentlemans' agreement on horsepower was dropped 2-4 years ago. I don't believe there is any law restricting HP either.

 

[Da Hapa]

Old post, but I just noticed this. The S2000 is 2 seconds behind the Z06 in the 1/4, not .2 2 seconds is HUGE. That's such a massive difference it basically reverses this argument.

Like it or not, the Z06 will eat the S2000 alive in every way. Actually, the Z06 will best the NSX handily also. *IF* Honda decides to update the NSX, they'd better make beating the Z06 a *bare minimum* requirement.

Sorry, but I need to interject here.

Seriously guys. SO THE HELL WHAT?

You're comparing apples to turtles. I've got absolutely nothing but respect for the z06 and won't get into the mallet vs. scalpel theory but at the end of the day you're comparing the performance of a $33K car (S2000) and a $50K car (Z06).

With twice as many cylinders, nearly 3 times the displacement and a more than 50% premium in price I should hope the Z06 would spank my beloved S. And you know what, other than being less nimble than the S, the Chevy is an arguably better sports car in every other important performance measure. But it should be.

I think its amazing that on many road courses, the little S that could can keep up with the big Chevy (and Mustangs, and Camaros) if not plain beat them (provided there aren't too many long straights).

That fact exemplifies all that is right with Honda's engineering. Doing less with more. Honda could have stuffed a big V6 in the S or a V8 in the NSX but then you have to beef up the drivetrain, the brakes, etc. You end up with a heavier car that doesn't have anywhere near the delicate and responsive feel that the NSX and S2000 enjoy. I can but a Mustang Cobra if all I care about is straight line speed. But I'd like to think that I'm a better driver than that and a better enthusiast.

I'll step off the soapbox now.