NSX-R Questions

[MAJOR STONER]

Different ECU chip controlling the trottle by wire.

 

[MAJOR STONER]

...The engine does not spool up any quicker, but the throttle position has been reworked to get the engine into the powerband a bit quicker with less pedal movement.

If my Zanardi got wrecked or stolen, I guess that an NSX-R, or some sort of replica, would be my next car. Or if there is no next NSX, I would be tempted to upgrade to a newer car, even if it were a NSX-T, but that wouldn't be cheap for what amounts to a color change. Think I would go with a very industrial look for my next car, regardless of color.

NSX-R review:

http://www.carbc.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=Reviews&file=index&req=showcontent&id=29

 

[ACR_Motorsports]

All moving parts in the engine have some friction. The piston going up and down in the bore, the friction of the conrods on the crankshaft bearings, etc. All this internal friction consumes power. It can be reduced by "blueprinting" and assembling the engine with selected matching components this blueprinting will give some extra bhp.

The tighter tolerances makes the engine gain power, smoother, and more "free reving". Also when blueprinting the components of the engine such as the crankshaft, mass is drilled out of the component at specific points to balance the crankshaft as close to the engine "blueprint". This results in a lighter crankshaft. Add to this the weight savings from the other components. As many know, lighter rotating mass engine components such as a flywheel results in a quicker revving engine.

Originally posted by nsxtasy:

What do you mean when you say it "revs faster"?

Does it have more torque or different gearing, which is the only way it would accelerate faster?

And does it have the same relatively flat torque curve as the regular NSX, which does NOT have a distinct "powerband"?

------------------
www.acrmotorsports.com / 949-929-8973

 

[MAJOR STONER]

Blueprinting the engine could be worth 11-15 HP, I'm guessing. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"The electronically-controlled Drive by Wire (DBW) throttle has been tuned to reach full throttle at a pedal angle reduced from the previous 81 degrees to 68 degrees, resulting in an accelerator pedal stroke reduction of some 8mm. At the same time, pedal control has been tuned for increased pedal weight. The result is a more solid pedal feel with a more instantaneous, direct throttle response. Even if the driver's foot is jarred by outside forces on the circuit, the system has been tuned not to drastically change the throttle angle."

P.S. I've always been staying away from white on a daily driver, just too sensitive a color, and hard to match-IMO. Love the way my red car glows on cloudy rainy days.

How long carbon fiber lasts in the real world is another matter I'm concerned about. Anyone ever chip ice off a carbon fiber hood? More HP on a winter car isn't always a good thing either. Never tracks straight blasting through standing puddles.

 

[Andrie Hartanto]

One thing I notice i the new type R are the brakes. According to hyper REV magazine (typeR edition) the new type R uses the 91-96 spec front brakes, and 97up rear brakes.

Is it because of the new aero?

 

[nsxtasy]

Originally posted by ACR_Motorsports:
All moving parts in the engine have some friction. The piston going up and down in the bore, the friction of the conrods on the crankshaft bearings, etc. All this internal friction consumes power. It can be reduced by "blueprinting" and assembling the engine with selected matching components this blueprinting will give some extra bhp.

The tighter tolerances makes the engine gain power, smoother, and more "free reving". Also when blueprinting the components of the engine such as the crankshaft, mass is drilled out of the component at specific points to balance the crankshaft as close to the engine "blueprint". This results in a lighter crankshaft. Add to this the weight savings from the other components. As many know, lighter rotating mass engine components such as a flywheel results in a quicker revving engine.

Thanks.

So then it is more powerful. Maybe not a LOT more powerful, but it does have a few more horsepower and more torque. As well as having lighter weight rotating components in, and downstream of, the crank.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 13 December 2002).]

 

[Lud]

I think what ACR is trying to say is that the fundamentals (air, fuel, compression, displacement, etc.) of the engine are unchanged. Net power output is higher, but instead of "producing more" power by changing something on the combustion side, it "loses less" thanks to blueprinting which results in less internal friction, lower inertial losses, etc.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 14 December 2002).]

 

[ACR_Motorsports]

Yup, Lud pretty much summed it up. There is one thing however, the compression and displacement are the same, but the Type-R has its own ECU that is different from regular NSXs so it MAY(probably) have different air, fuel, and timing values. How much power they derive from those changes is anyone's guess.

Originally posted by Lud:
I think what ACR is trying to say is that the fundamentals (air, fuel, compression, displacement, etc.) of the engine are unchanged. Net power output is higher, but instead of "producing more" power by changing something on the combustion side, it "loses less" thanks to blueprinting which results in less internal friction, lower inertial losses, etc.

[This message has been edited by Lud (edited 14 December 2002).]

------------------
www.acrmotorsports.com / 949-929-8973

 

[naaman]

Originally posted by nsxtasy:
Thanks.

So then it is more powerful. Maybe not a LOT more powerful, but it does have a few more horsepower and more torque. As well as having lighter weight rotating components in, and downstream of, the crank.

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 13 December 2002).]

Did nsxtacy actually learn something NEW???

 

[docjohn]

I revived this thread to ask a ? of our engineers.Since bluprinting allows an engine to be more eficiant ie. lose less power,what is the % efficiency rating of our engines?And how much hp could our engines make if we get to a point were friction and heat are almost 0,using technology not yet developed.I'm assuming that Formula 1 motors are the most efficient on the planet?

 

[Lud]

Otto cycle internal combusion engines are horribly inefficient! I think the maximum ideal energy efficiency is in the 50%-60% range just for the combustion cycle.

By the time you add in the real-world factors such as friction, you are talking someting like 35% efficiency just to move the pistons, and maybe 15% energy efficiency from the potential energy of the fuel to the actual work done by the wheels against the pavement.

 

[docjohn]

Thanx Lud,what I'm really trying to get at is how much HP would we be making if the motor's moving parts weighed next to nothing and friction was near 0,,500-600 HP from our 3L?

 

[naaman]

Well, a typical (stock) car gets about 28-33% efficiency (If I remember auto shop correctly). I believe that figure includes things like fuel economy and performance. An engine operating at 100% efficiency could, I suppose make 3-4 times the horsepower and use 3-4 times less fuel durning "normal" operation.

A way to measure efficiency is to check the emissions of the vehicle. If the tailpipe were emitting only water and carbon dioxide, the car would be running 100% efficiently (i.e. it would be achieving 100% combustion of the air/fuel mixture. The more fuel you use successfully, the more power you make). When the engine is blue printed and the friction is reduced, the engine can rev more easily; pistons move up and down in the cylinders with less effort, the crankshaft spins more easily etc. The less resistence there is against a given amount of power, the more work that gets done (over a shorter period of time).

I believe that blueprinting or balancing the engine also allows it to safely rev to a highter redline... but I've only heard that once.

 

[gheba_nsx]

If you are not completely unfamiliar with physics this makes a good reading: http://www.alvar-engine.se/otto.htm

The conclusion is:
"The average normal driving efficiency of an Otto engine is typically 10-15% compared to the 30-35% optimum efficiency. This low efficiency suggest that there is significant potential for improvement."

In theory you could improve 2x the efficiency of teh Otto engine, bringin it close to a modern power plant (carnot cycle).

 

[cojones]

speaking of scalable high-output motors, check out this article on the 5.0L V-10 for the coming Lambo Gallardo (aka Baby Lambo).

500 hp through a 6 speed tranny (choice of manual/gated or auto-manual paddle shifters available)
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/index_gallardo1.html