I watched the unveiling today and they made a point that the engine is positioned longitudinally, as if it is a technological marvel and advantage to do so. Why is that so? It seems like for a mid-engine rear drive layout, transverse would be better like in the original NSX. Is it just to have more room for the tranny and the electric drivetrain? Seem like longitudinal would result in more drivetrain loss converting the power 90 degrees to the wheels.
Why longitudinal?
- Thread starter Computron
- Start date
They went longitudinal to create room for future upgrades.
Complex adding a 9 speed, and an electric motor/generator to a transverse, and keep it strong.
but more important: Is there still a trunk?
but more important: Is there still a trunk?
Transverse has different length axles which does not transmit the torque as equally. At the end of the day there really isn't a big drivetrain loss from one configuration over the other but longitudinal allows for more gearbox flexibility and for even exhaust and intake plumbing.
Ah, the even length exhaust and intake plumbing makes sense! That's really about the only thing that makes much sense.
But as someone else said above, will there be any room left for a trunk after the longitudinal twin turbo engine, 9 speed DCT, electric motor, etc??
After all this, the Tesla P85D really seems like the car of the future in its simplicity and performance, and now it even seems cheap by comparison!!!
You can't have wide, strong gears in a 6, 7, 8 speed transverse gearbox -another reason longitudinal is better. Advantages of transverse is simplicity and packaging, so less expensive and more room in the car for luggage.
How do they do it in the TLX with the 9 speed AT? I know it's not DCT, but does DCT take up more space? Or are the gears not wide and strong??
Last edited:
DCTs take up a ton of space and are huge gearboxes. In order for them to be transverse (with the engine) there has to be a lot of room (width) between the frame rails to fit everything. This wide distance is structurally weaker due to the huge hole necessary to fit the engine and transaxle. This isn't a huge issue for a sport sedan but its not ideal for a proper sportscar.
Because it's better. It's what's used in F1.
Thought the only reason for tranverse is for closer to center of the car's axis and (in the case of the NSX 1.0) a trunk......
- - - Updated - - -
I see GM V-8 conversion kits in the future....
NOT in the near future. Maybe 20 years from now.
You can still fit two golf bags in the trunk they claim.
No, one golf bag, or two pieces of luggage.
Excuse self-inflicted dyslexia from speed reading :biggrin:
Why go long?
The short answer is packaging/aero/balance and this is how F1/Prototypes does it but you loose the trunk.
With the engine-gearbox-Diff layout in long, you have a symmetrical space on either side of the engine block where the CG and the Center of Pressure in close proximity and this is the beginning of the diffuser which extends all the way pass the rear tires, with a proper wing, to generate serious DF of the earlier race cars something in the neighborhood of 3-4Gs with no need to lift before the corning speed got too high so now the tunnel of the diffuser is very shallow comparatively.
With the trans layout, you don't have the proper space needed to generate DF but you can put two golf bags in the trunk.
The blueprint is a Group C car and the other one is the Big Mac 12C/650/P1 cut-away with the huge DCT no way for a trans layout.
The short answer is packaging/aero/balance and this is how F1/Prototypes does it but you loose the trunk.
With the engine-gearbox-Diff layout in long, you have a symmetrical space on either side of the engine block where the CG and the Center of Pressure in close proximity and this is the beginning of the diffuser which extends all the way pass the rear tires, with a proper wing, to generate serious DF of the earlier race cars something in the neighborhood of 3-4Gs with no need to lift before the corning speed got too high so now the tunnel of the diffuser is very shallow comparatively.
With the trans layout, you don't have the proper space needed to generate DF but you can put two golf bags in the trunk.
The blueprint is a Group C car and the other one is the Big Mac 12C/650/P1 cut-away with the huge DCT no way for a trans layout.
I'm thinking the new NSX would be a joke if they hadn't.
i'm so glad they made the last min change for all of the reasons mentioned above. Like Ted said, that's like performing heart transplant while the patient is still alive.
I hope this longitudinal architecture makes it's way to the new rumored MR S2000 replacement.
I hope this longitudinal architecture makes it's way to the new rumored MR S2000 replacement.
My guess is even weight balance L/R. Probably better also for vehicle dynamics under acceleration/braking. With transverse engines there is a lot of rocking back/forth upon whenever the throttle opens.
- - - Updated - - -
Note also that racing variants of the NA1/NA2 NSXs were also converted to be longitudinal, so clearly there is some serious performance advantage.
- - - Updated - - -
Note also that racing variants of the NA1/NA2 NSXs were also converted to be longitudinal, so clearly there is some serious performance advantage.
Road and Track seems to think it allows the option to go to a V8/V10 in the future
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...pure-speculation-the-acura-nsx-will-get-a-v8/
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-car...pure-speculation-the-acura-nsx-will-get-a-v8/
Maybe they are making room for this swap in the future:
Maybe they are making room for this swap in the future:
that's a 1.6L V6 Turbo, that can already fit in the new NSX most likely.
Yes but this way the swap is expedited by having the engine facing in the right direction! :smile:
Similar threads
