This "fact" is new to me. Someone confirm please.

[Yellow Rose]

Originally posted by effer:
OTOH I am "LOL ing" a lot with that 90 degres argument on a car having its crankshaft PARALLEL to rotational axis of rear tires!!!

And maybe I am wrong but the NSX isn't a transverse gearbox layout like for example a Ferrari 348T !!!

effer - have you looked at an NSX lately? As in *every* NSX produced for the past eleven years? The NSX has a traverse engine AND a traverse transmission. Therefore, the engine crankshaft and the drive axles are parallel to each other.

 

[SITNLOW]

Originally posted by BITeR:
From the looooong Supra vs. NSX forum, someone posted this "fact":

"The NSX has 275 HP that's transverse mounted, in a car
that weighs 3100 lbs. You loose about 25% power, from
a 90 degree directional change."

That can't be entierly true?

 

[effer]

Originally posted by AndyVecsey:
effer - have you looked at an NSX lately?

It is maybe difficult to look at it from cockpit I guess!!!

As in *every* NSX produced for the past eleven years?
[/QUOTE]

Unfortunately I can't say that I've taken a look at every NSX of this world, maybe you did if you are so enthousiastic to ask me?

Never would I consider that you are trying to serve me something that could also be served to you...otherwise this would be kind of pathetic behavior!!! ( Joking )

I said that I'm not sure but can you explain me why the Ferrari 348T is a transverse gearbox while longitudinal engine??????????????????????? And about that, I AM SURE.

The NSX has a traNSverse engine AND a traNSverse transmission. Therefore, the engine crankshaft and the drive axles are parallel to each other.

[/QUOTE]

And gear axles are also parallel to driving shaft THUS I THINK that the NSX isn't a transverse gearbox.

Have you read at my post lately? I clearly said too that crankshaft is parallel to drive train.

If I am wrong just explain to me, I think that I clearly explained my understanding
( or misunderstanding! ) about transverse gearbox and transverse engine terminology.

I think that I am right but if I am not I will be please to benefit from your knowledge.

Thanks in advance Andy, maybe I'm wrong...

 

[Yellow Rose]

It appears effer and I are saying the same thing, except using different terminology.

When I say "traverse" I mean with respect to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. With this naming convention, the engine and transmission are both traverse to the vehicle and are parallel to each other.

It seems that when effer uses the term "traverse", it is the engine with respect to the transmission. With this convention the NSX engine and transmission are not traverse to each other, but the Ferrari engine / transmission is.

As to why the Ferrai design is such that the engine and transmission are perpendicular to each other, I have no idea.

I hope this clears up some confusion - effer and I are just using different wording to say the same thing. One thing for sure. THe original post asked if the orientation of the NSX engine leads to excessive power loss through the drive train. That answer is "no".

 

[nsxtasy]

I believe the term is "transverse", meaning "horizontal and perpedicular to the longitudinal axis", and not "traverse", meaning "to travel from one end to the other".

[This message has been edited by nsxtasy (edited 11 October 2002).]

 

[effer]

Originally posted by AndyVecsey:
It appears effer and I are saying the same thing, except using different terminology.

Right! I realized it!

When I say "traverse" I mean with respect to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle. With this naming convention, the engine and transmission are both traverse to the vehicle and are parallel to each other.
[/QUOTE]

This is what I understood from your posts and this is exactly what I am not sure about!

Does a transverse gearbox also related to lontiduginal axis of vehicle?

Can we find a precise definition of it?

I ask this because I understand that a transverse transmission is always 90 degres from crankshaft which needs a more complex mechanical solution to link them, thus explaining its terminology.



It seems that when effer uses the term "traverse", it is the engine with respect to the transmission.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. Since our two ways of interpreting that terminology can be right I would like to know how do engineers and experts consider it!


As to why the Ferrari design is such that the engine and transmission are perpendicular to each other, I have no idea.
[/QUOTE]

I know, it is fitting needs of engine/gearbox assembly in car's engine bay.

And this solution, I believe, first appeared in racing ( F1 maybe ) and get the attention due to its technological challenge than its relative positionning toward car's lontiduginal axis...also in the goal of saving space and not letting the gearbox overhang behind rear wheels...

Andy, what was your last digit? Won't ask you the first one after I read MyNSX reply!

Regards,

effer

nsxtasy you're a living encyclopedia!

I's like very much to have good conversation with you...

 

[Yellow Rose]

My bad - I was thinking "transverse" but typing "traverse". What a dip shit.

I prefer to think of transverse as the axis of a piece of rotating equipment - engine or transmission - with respect to the vehicle it is mounted in. Therefore, the NSX's engine and transmission are both transverse. In contrast the Ferrari's engine is longitudinal but the transmission is transverse.

I am a mechanical engineer, and my specialty interest in college was power transmission. I have designed industrial gearboxes.

 

[POWERED by HONDA]

Originally posted by JoeSchmoe:
OTOH, has anyone actually independently found the crank HP of the NSX engine (ie on a test stand and not calculated from the RWHP)? Maybe the engine actually puts out more than the claimed 270/290 HP and Honda lied about it the same way Mitsubishi under-rates the 3000GT to conform to the JDM 280HP cap?

I highly doubt that Honda would do that. If it actually did put out more hp, don't you think Honda would have done it a long time ago? The NSX loses respect because of it's "low HP" rating. They would have boosted their marketing material in 1997 and/or (especially) 2002 if they really were underrating their hp rating.

 

[frunobulax]

try using "athwartships" instead of "transverse". that'll clear it up.

what really makes you cry is to know that it takes anywhere from 60-120 hp just to overcome the friction in a reciprocating engine, just to make the thing RUN. that's power being generated that you never see, although it's nice on a cold winter morning to have the heater blowing on yer tootsies.

------------------
dave
94 black/tan

 

[THEPOGNSXTC]

Hey chumps and zuest I really would be intersted in seeing those dyno sheets of those 90-94 275rwp nsxs, its more on the line of 250rwp at the most for years 90-94. You are right about the newer years being 290hp but id have to see the dyno sheets for your claim on the 90-94. Well unless your talking about a 275hp run on the dyno from a nsx that has headers,full pipe, other mods and some fine tunning done.