Honda vs. Ford Engines -- A technical look
Guy Under The Bridge
very high level of refinment. Ford is more mass-market oriented and
concentrates of the cost-economy and marketing aspects of the automaker
industry. These are two very different approaches to success; one strives to
gain recognition through excellence of product, the other strives to
increase market-share by streamlined operation and high finiacial
performance.
Honda builds better engines. That's an absolute statement of simple fact, if
judged on the merits on build quality and engineering. That does not
nescisarily mean Honda engines are more powerful, because most are
relatively weak. Ford isn't concerned with maxamizing power efficiency,
because this is difficult and expensive, and building simpler and larger
engines is more cost-effective, and more effective as a marketing tool. This
is not to say Ford engines are low-quality--in fact, the engine I'm
concerned with in this post--the 4.6L v8 SHO--is an excellent engine in
terms of reliability.
Let's examine the difference between small and advanced vs. large and
simple. The trend in racing is to maxamize specific power output--or power
efficiency. Race engines try and maxamize output while minimizing size and
wieght, and this is what Honda tries to do. As a company, Honda expends a
great deal of effort to optimize their engines to greater and greater
specific power output. This is why Honda engines have, over the years,
remained the same size but steadily increased in power. Ford isn't intrested
in building race cars, and is primarily concerned with being on top of the
marketplace--this is good for Ford but bad for racing. This, however, does
not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those engines are optomized for
marketing and sales, not performance.
Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
(excluding NSX):
FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
4.6L v8 DOHC
316hp
* 69hp / liter
HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
205hp
* 114hp / liter
As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this is
meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice. Total
power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
But before Honda owners get too cocky, there is a big problem in this
high-performance forumla--acceleration. In racing (when I say 'racing', I
mean real racing, not dragging) the sacrifice of acceleration for power is
acceptable. Unfortunatly for the average driver, acceleration is, perhaps,
the most important performance consideration. In this area a larger engine
will always beat a smaller one, no matter how great the technical advantage.
This is due to a larger stroke, which translates instantly into more torque
at the wheels. Torque has nothing to do with speed, but is the measurment of
acceleration (torque literally means 'moment of acceleration'). In simple
terms, torque is accelerating power.
Let's examine the difference in torque output:
FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
4.6L v8 DOHC
316lbs-ft
* 69lbs-ft / liter
HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
130lbs-ft
* 72lbs-ft / liter
Despite the huge difference in stroke, the Honda makes up for it's size in
sheer high-revving ability, and, again, takes the lead in specific power.
This is a great tribute for Honda engineers who can build an engine like
no-one else can, but 130lbs-ft will always lose to 312lbs-ft.In addition,
the peak torque is available much earlier in the powerband (the number of
revs) of the Ford than it is in the Honda, and the difference in low-end
torque--the torque that matters in a street race--is huge.
So which road applications are best for Ford and Honda? If all you care
about is dragging--get a Mustang because no Honda in existance will beat you
on the strip short of an NSX. If you care about speed and lap performance,
get a Type-R because the Mustang will struggle just to keep from LOSING
power at the high powerbands, and also falls drastically short in handling
and transmission, but we're talking about engines here.
In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a $21k
Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS it,
blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in a
blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not up to
extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the Si,
GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies. If
you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a Cobra.
--
Guy Under The Bridge
Super Genius!
Sanders Racing-1
--
Nathan Van Buren
www.sandersracing.com
Guy Under The Bridge <guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MppW2.1387$362...@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com...
USER
the competences...
Randy
guy_under_...@yahoo.com says...
>In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a $21k
>Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS it,
>blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in a
>blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
>replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not up to
>extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the Si,
>GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies. If
>you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a Cobra.
>
>--
>
>Super Genius!(Legend in my on mind)
>
>
All that work and its still a "Civic". Bwahahahahaha!
--
Randy Cook
1989 LX 5.0
"Tonight it ain't right, I'm gonna need me a week.
But I'll be back for you jack and I'll let the machine speak."
REMOVE * FROM E-MAIL ADDRESS TO RESPOND.
USER
>
>And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
>handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
>dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
>spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
>up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
>
Not only it can win, but it already won! Drivetrain speaking, no Acura can
approach the extreme capabilities of the beefed up Pinto (particularly with
an added force induction).
But I don't want to drive a Pinto. Now the Pinto has now an independant
rear suspension; the Pinto is improving. But I don't like Pintos.
vlad petersen
.....
> Your Dad's Accord engine was designed and tuned specifically for that
> vehicle. Honda puts a different engine in every car they make--they do this
> because Honda's car-building philosophy stresses high refinment
.......
Every manufacturer's car-building philosophy is to make more money. Are
you too stupid to understand that?
> Guy Under The Bridge
> Super Genius!
Yeah right. With an IQ of a bird. Do you keep yer Hondah under the
bridge too?
Josh Turner
Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
>
> > Just my two cents.... this is a silly thread. My dad has a Honda Accord.
> I have a
> > Ford Contour SVT. My dad tried to get me to buy a Honda for all the
> reasons the Guy
> > Under the Bridge mentions. BUT... my 6 cyl. SVT slams his 4 cyl. Accord
> into the
> > ground. And my dad admits it. Even though the engine in the Accord
> mathematically
> > "puts out" more hp per litre and more torque in the higher rpm's. Again,
> just my
> > two cents.....
>
> Your Dad's Accord engine was designed and tuned specifically for that
> vehicle. Honda puts a different engine in every car they make--they do this
> because Honda's car-building philosophy stresses high refinment. That Accord
> is not meant for performance, it's meant for reliable economy (which it does
> very well, the Accord is one of the most exceptionaly relibale cars in the
> world) so everything in it will reflect that, including the engine.
>
> Your overpriced SVT, on the other hand, IS meant for performance.
<snort> Overpriced? That's rich. The SVT is almost exactly the same
price as its Hondacura compeition, the Integra GS-R, and it undercuts a
comparably equipped Prelude by almost 3 grand.
> The 2.5L
> Duratec is a pretty good performer--80hp / liter is not bad. But the 1.8L 98
> spec-R blows it away at 205hp and 114hp / liter. In terms of overall
> performance, the Integra Type-R is in a different class altogether over the
> Contour SVT as well.
The SVT Contour isn't a hand-built race car for the street. If you want
to compare the Type R to something, compare it to either the 1995 Cobra
R or the forthcoming Y2K Cobra R, both of which will assuredly strip the
Integra bare and give it a good whuppin.
Joshua Lowe
<guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Honda, as a company, designs and builds their vehicles with the aim of a
>very high level of refinment. Ford is more mass-market oriented and
keep this kind of trolling shit in rec.autos.driving where it belongs.
Josh
97 Cobra
K&N, 9Ball cold-air
262.7 rwhp 267.6 rwtq
Joshua Lowe
<jetyd...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>
>
>But isnt that "Ford" engine really made by Yamaha?
No.
It's made by Ford, in Romeo, Michigan.
The block is cast in Italy, but the engine itself was designed and is
assembled in MI.
Joshua Lowe
<guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
>by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
>like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
Then answer me this.
An Integra GS-R is lucky to run a mid 15 second 1/4 mile when stock.
A 99 Mustang GT is lucky to run a high 13 second 1/4 mile when stock.
Sounds to me like that extra power isn't being 'eaten'.
Brian Wong
news:372b718c...@news.mia.bellsouth.net...
> >> 4.6L v8 DOHC
> >
> >
>
> No.
he's right. yamaha makes the taurus sho's engine, not the cobra's.
Joshua Lowe
>Why does this fucking Jare Rude keep posting on the Honda Newsgroups if he's
>got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how something
I'm sorry if you find the facts not to be good, but they are what they
are.
>bad about Honda...why don't you go to the Mustang forums and discuss your
>fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners and
>enthusiasts to discuss Hondas. It's not here so you can post your
This is a crossposted thread started by a troll. Check the headers.
I should be above replying to you and furthering the thread, but the
fact of the matter is I have too much fun with this kind of thing, and
Jared is a friend. I don't stand around and listen to ignorant yahoos
mouth off to my friends without putting in my own two cents.
>non-educated messages on here. You're probably some high-school punk who
>bought a used cheap-ass 5.0. We don't give a shit about your LX 5.0. I
>don't even know why I'm going into this. But i'll say it....wasting this
>time to inform you...geez...
Jared is far beyond high school, so you don't have to worry about
meeting up with him at yours.
>Simple. Honda offers cars that are simple, ultra-reliable, great gas
>mileage, and some of them are otherwise associated with "fun to drive,
>sport, etc, spritied acceleration, you get the point." Now it doesn't take
OHC engines aren't simple. Wankle-rotary is simple. I love the
ultra-reliable bit. I see more Hondas down than -any- other type of
car. Yet the PR machine that Honda has constructed has thoroughly
programmed their lemmings to believe they are the be-all end-all of
reliability.
>smaller engine, making Fords faster than Hondas. I'll also tell you that
>Honda is more synonymous with reliable than your trusted Fords. Most
More marketing spiel.
>performance oriented Fords, straight from the factory run 13-14s in the 1/4
>mile....while Hondas (excluding the NSX) run 14-15s in the 1/4 mile. Simply
What Honda runs a 14 besides the Type R if it's lucky, from the
factory? (Excluding the NSX and motorcycles)
The Integra GS-R is a mid 15 second car at best.
>put again, your Fords are faster. If Hondas wanted to be faster, they'd
>modify the car with what the aftermarket offers. And that's why there are
And they're still slower. My favorite scene actually involved Jared.
The first time I met him, several months ago. He was running mid to
high 13's at the time. There was a red Integra GS-R that was totally
riced out. Enormous muffler, monster tach, engine mods of undisclosed
nature, nitrous, slicks. The owner paraded around like a god damned
peacock about his wicked-fast Integra. He and Jared ended up lined
next to each other. Jared ran something like a 13.8, and Mr. Integra,
spraying the whole way, ran a 14.2. It takes one hellaciously
modified Honda to even begin to threaten as a competitor to a
relatively stock 5.0.
Hondas DO want to be faster, that's the point. I see them with 40lbs
of stickers, exhaust tips the size of garbage cans, giant wheels, and
everything else, and they. are. still. slow. Slow, slow, slow. Face
REALITY, kiddo. THEY ARE ____SLOW____.
>many fast Hondas running...even as low as 9 seconds. I don't know if you
Those Hondas cost tens and tens of thousands of dollars and are
trailered race cars. There are plenty of _street driven_ Mustangs
that have touched 9's. The full-on racecars are now deep into the
___7's___. Do you know how much more HP it takes to get a car from
running a 9.8 to down to a 7.8? A hell of a lot more than it takes to
go from a 14.5 to a 13.5.
>consider that fast..but I would say so. All in all, Hondas are made with
>higher quality from hard working Japanese and little of their assembly is
You are apparently a racist/nationalist, too.
>completed in the United States...usually just final assembly....and your
>Fords...well....comparing their quality to the H cars is out of the
>question...but i will admit they are progressively getting better throughout
So the marketing machine tells you. Got news for ya, this isn't 1986
anymore. Shit's changed. How's Japan's economy doing these days?
Swirling down the toilet I believe would be a good analogy. The auto
industry has completely changed since then, too.
>the years. And I'm not just dogging Ford. Most American automobile
>manufactures, this goes the same for....Japanese automakers have always been
"Most American automobile manufacturers." How many are there? 3,
last time I checked. Ford, GM, Daimler-Chrysler.
>P.S. Even though your Ford car will smoke the 4-banger crowd. I would
>still say that there is a lot of potential for the little engine...simply
>because it has a very good power to weight ratio. I mean...when you got
Well, you'd be wrong.
>nearly 200 horses and you're only weighing in 2700+ lbs....that's pretty
>good.... Of course if you got a Mustang, that weighs in at 3200+ you're
>gonna have to make a whole lot more power to make that puppy fly.
Yet 205hp rated 93LX cars that weighed in at 3200lbs still stomp the
fuck out of your car, so it looks like you're still wrong.
>My last two cents:
>
> I'm not saying anyone is better here. I'm saying if you want
Yes you are! Jesus Christ. "I hate you and you suck, but I'm not
saying I don't like you." Stop trying to puss out and stand by your
convictions, as hollow and wrong as they are.
>reliablity, the better miles for your gallon, quality, and not a bad
>foundation for performance, consider a Honda. Although it will be a harder
If you want a sedate grocery-getter that is good for moms and kitties,
and has a performance foundation that is itself founded in the group
hallucination of thousands of high-schoolers across the country that
their cars are capable of being something they simple are not and
never can be, consider a Honda.
>road to the path of die-hard performance. We're talking engine swaps, total
>engine work, and sometimes, even forced induction.
This statement sums it up. When an engine swap is considered to be a
better alternative to forced induction, that is a BIG hint that the.
car. sucks.
> Now if you're just hungry for power, and it really bugs you that your
>sacred torque characteristics aren't there, and you want a performance
>machine out of the box, and you want bang for buck, consider the LS1 Z28.
What the hell is the difference between the Z28 and the Mustang for
the intents and purposes of this thread? None.
>My friend owns that one. And it flies. May wanna embrace yourself while
>you're in the seat. I'm still suffering from whiplash..hehe. And it's much
>easier to "soup up" than a Honda...due to it's better initial performance
You think an LS1 is easy to soup up but a 5.0 isn't? Do you realize
how many thousands of aftermarket parts there are for the 5.0? You
just don't know what you're talking about, and you've transcended from
annoying to obnoxious..
>standing. Supercharger a Z28, you should run anywhere from 12s to even as
I don't believe there are any supercharger out there for the LS1 as of
right now. There are no less than 15-20 different brands and models
for the 5.0, plus various turbo systems, too.
Jared's car is a near-stock 5.0 and it's run 13.1, nearly into your
ever-so-sacred 12's. My friend Dave Paz's 98 Cobra has a stock motor
and runs 12.34, no nitrous no blower. Joe Maneiro's supercharged
Cobra was running mid 10's @ 133 last I heard.
>far as 11s...that's usually the average..I'm sure there may be some that ar
>faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe.
Pot. kettle. black. You're through.
Joshua Lowe
<guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>No, Honda builds a different engine for every car they make. If the car is
>meant for cargo hauling, it's engine will reflect that utility (99 Odyssey
>3.5L v6 220lbs-ft). If it's meant for racing, it will be tuned for that (98
>Integra Type-R 1.8L 4-cyl 205hp). Ford does not make a production engine for
>racing.
Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
>> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
>> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
>> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
>> displacement) then it would be different.
>
>I know the B18C 98 spec-R is around 1800cc. What's the 4.6L DOHC?
HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
You are a self-proclaimed genius, and you can't convert liters to
cubic centimeters?
LET'S SEE.
4.6 Liters
x 1000
=
4600 cubic centimeters!
By god!
Amazing!
>> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
>
>I was covering a broader range of fundimental engineering compromises a
>larger displacment engine force on car design. The smaller the engine the
>less restricted the design of a car. This is why the Mustang and Integra,
>although being basically the same size, have such a huge diference in
>wieght, suspension, etc.
You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
>And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
>handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
>spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
>up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
Are you seriously trying to say that the Honda aftermarket is larger
than Ford's? You're living in a dream world.
Gerald Wang
>Duratec is a pretty good performer--80hp / liter is not bad. But the 1.8L 98
>spec-R blows it away at 205hp and 114hp / liter. In terms of overall
>performance, the Integra Type-R is in a different class altogether over the
>Contour SVT as well.
Let's see how well the Type-R does with some passengers and luggage.
Oops, are we having trouble accelerating up that hill? Better downshift
to 2nd.. damn that lack of low-end torque! Ahh.. so that's why it
doesn't come with A/C. ;-)
Cheers,
Gerald
Josh Turner
Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
>
> Josh Turner <sh...@umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:372A8627...@umich.edu...
>
> > What's a "better" engine, if not the one that does the job better? Put
> > one of those vaunted 1.8L VTEC lumps in a Taurus, and it wouldn't be
> > able to get out of its own way.
>
> Since the average American car owner doesn't understand a thing past total
> horsepower and torque, I can understand the blind spot your coming out of.
> Yes, the 1.8L (B18 family) would be hard-pressed to 'do the job' in a
> Taurus, because the Taurus is a big, sloppy, heavy land cruiser, and it
> needs a large-dosplacment engine. Now this is where it gets interesting--is
> the Taurus a big heavy car because it supposed to be or because it HAS to be
> to support a big, cheap and inefficient engine?
Are you kidding?
No, seriously, are you kidding?
Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in that
segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
Continuing with our apples to apples comparison, let's look at the
luxury lines. Honda offers an entry level luxury sedan (the Acura TL)
that uses 3.2L to make 225 hp--that's 70 hp/L. Ford offers an entry
level luxury sedan (the Lincoln LS) that uses 3.0L to make 210
hp--whaddya know, without even using a calculator I can see that that is
also 70 hp/L. Ford also offers entry level luxury sedans that make 80
hp/L (the Jaguar S-type), and 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
(ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
Miller cycle.
The correct inference to draw from this is that, while 100 hp/L is
possible at larger engine displacements (look at the S52 BMW 3.2 L,
which makes 321 hp), it is both hideously expensive and totally
unecessary, even in the eyes of the technology mavens at Honda.
Even Honda's little engines that you're so proud of are essentially
marketing tools rather than performance products. If, for some reason,
you want/need to get 200 hp out of a 1.8L four, it's far better to
simply turbocharge it. Modern turbos have few of the emissions and
durability problems of the early versions, and they're likely cheaper to
engineer and build than the titanium connecting rod bedecked B18C.
Moreover, and this is the really critical point, a well-designed turbo
powerplant gives you a far broader, more usable power band than is found
in the peaky little Hondas, and affords a lot more torque down low, in
addition to the power up high. Honda, though, found it was easy to
capitalize on their admitted racing success by coming up with a unique
concept (peaky high-hp engines) brought about by a technology with a
cool acronym (VTEC). I have to say, it's worked admirably. A whole
generation of people have grown up thinking that because their 125 hp
Civic has VTEC, it is somehow a fast, powerful car.
> The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For the
> same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds weak,
> huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
> 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
> by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
> like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
half faster to 60?
Guy Under The Bridge
>Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
>there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
>4600 cubic centimeters!
Very good.
4600 / 1800 = 2.6
320 / 205 = 1.6
An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
The numbers aren't going away.
>You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
>incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
I'm too tired to gear down to your vocabulary.
>Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
Cobra and Civic DX.
lyo...@atl.hp.com
> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
> >dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
> >spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
> >up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
Tell you what - every aftermarket web site you can find for Honda performance,
I'll find two for Mustang performance. Deal?
Dave
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Yossarian
Liao <sine...@ionet.net> wrote in message
news:7gf0i3$3qr$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
> Why does this fucking Jare Rude keep posting on the Honda Newsgroups if
he's
> got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how
something
> fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners
and
> enthusiasts to discuss Hondas.
bloody headers.
> It's not here so you can post your non-educated messages on here.
"Uneducated", O Wise One. And I'd say that Jared's posts exude a little
something that most do not - intellect.
>You're probably some high-school punk who bought a used cheap-ass 5.0.
Actually, at the threat of revealing info that Jared may not want spread
(though all accessible through DejaNews), he's actually a mechanical
engineer at Motorola. Not quite "some high-school punk"you freak of DNA
experimentation.
> Simple. Honda offers cars that are simple, ultra-reliable, great gas
> Most performance oriented Fords, straight from the factory run 13-14s in
the 1/4
> mile....while Hondas (excluding the NSX) run 14-15s in the 1/4 mile.
14-15s if there's a gale force wind coming from behind.
>Simply put again, your Fords are faster. If Hondas wanted to be faster,
they'd
> modify the car with what the aftermarket offers. And that's why there are
> many fast Hondas running...even as low as 9 seconds.
You do know that there are 9sec streetable Mustangs running around (quite a
few from what I understand) - would you want to drive one of those 9sec
Hondas in rush hour?
> Supercharger a Z28, you should run anywhere from 12s to even as
> far as 11s...that's usually the average..I'm sure there may be some that
are
> faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe
Nah - no supercharger needed necessarily. "Popular Hotrodding" (?) this
month has a LS1 Camaro running high 12s with exhaust and a shot of nitrous.
A supercharger is more fun, though.
Yossarian
Guy Under The Bridge <guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ReNW2.5057$362....@news.rdc1.bc.wave.home.com...
> >4600 cubic centimeters!
>
> Very good.
>
> 4600 / 1800 = 2.6
> 320 / 205 = 1.6
>
> An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
>
> The numbers aren't going away.
power. Now, were we comparing a Honda V8 and a Ford V8, hp/liter might have
some bearing - but we aren't.
> >Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
> Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between
a
> Cobra and Civic DX.
Really? A Civic DX costs $8k?
And you said "Mustang" - not "new" or "Cobra". Someone else already outlined
the costs - but I'll go even further back - $5k for a good '89 LX 5.0. For
all this power, it's going to need nice wheels/tires - so I'll spend $1500
and buy a set of 17" Cobra R rims and Z rated tires, say 275/40-ish in size.
Maybe I'd go to 315s in this fantasy, but that's a little extreme for my
tastes, like 18" wheels. Lessee - Griggs suspension - ~$6k. 13"+ brakes all
around - let's say $5k or so. Plenty of stopping power. Just for kicks,
let's put in a supercharged 5.4L DOHC - perfect for leaving those NSXs in a
hurry. Throw in some 3.73s (maybe 3.55s) and a nice stereo for $3k. There,
all done. Outhandles, outaccelerates, and (maybe) outbrakes the NSX. For
less than half the price. And I've got a kickass stereo. ;) You know what
I'd then do in this fantasy? Go buy a '66-7 Mustang fastback and do it all
over again. Nah, maybe I'd start with the classic.
Gary Wolfe
>Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
[....]
>> Your overpriced SVT, on the other hand, IS meant for performance.
><snort> Overpriced? That's rich. The SVT is almost exactly the same
>price as its Hondacura compeition, the Integra GS-R, and it undercuts a
>comparably equipped Prelude by almost 3 grand.
3 Grand? Unless the SVT has an equivalent to the SH's ATTS, it should
be compared to the base Prelude! That makes it less than $800 under
(comparing MSRP of both, no options).
>> The 2.5L
>> Duratec is a pretty good performer--80hp / liter is not bad. But the 1.8L 98
>> spec-R blows it away at 205hp and 114hp / liter. In terms of overall
While I think it's amusing that hp/l comparisons have some V8 fans
exasperated in their replies, I look at it as a sign of technological
capability, but not as the end-all in benchmarks. You'd get a better
comparison of two cars by using the 1/4 mi.! And I definately think
that's a narrow definition of performance.
>> performance, the Integra Type-R is in a different class altogether over the
>> Contour SVT as well.
>The SVT Contour isn't a hand-built race car for the street. If you want
>to compare the Type R to something, compare it to either the 1995 Cobra
>R or the forthcoming Y2K Cobra R, both of which will assuredly strip the
>Integra bare and give it a good whuppin.
Why not compare it to just the Cobra? The regular Cobra is practially
in a different class than the Mustang GT, and should not look bad in
the comparison with the Integra Type R. Next thing you know, someone
will be trying to compare the Saleen Mustang... (yeah, I'm being
facetious.. I know it's already been argued about...)
(I've removed rec.autos.makers.ford,rec.autos.makers.ford.mustang from
the newsgroups line... I can't believe crossposting is going to help
this thread! Pretty good troll, though. :-) )
--
Gary Wolfe
t...@ix.netTiredofspaMcom.com (remove the between-caps part for the correct address)
slacker808
owners could care less about Fords. and Ford owners could care less
about Hondas.
---
rich
headbone
suppose that you think that ford designs the miata and Rx7 engines too?
e
Josh Turner wrote:
> Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
> >
headbone
choose different cars.
Dude, you have tol check yourslef on so much stuff its not even funny. I'll just
check this one for you though.
Ask yourself how many of honda's cars are built in th e US vs Japan.
I'm not too sure but I believe that of the "hondas" only the prelude is built in
sayama, japan.
That means that all of those accords, CRvs and civics you see are built by lazy
amaercian workers. It shows too.
e
Liao wrote:
> Why does this fucking Jare Rude keep posting on the Honda Newsgroups if he's
> got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how something
> bad about Honda...why don't you go to the Mustang forums and discuss your
> fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners and
> enthusiasts to discuss Hondas. It's not here so you can post your
> non-educated messages on here. You're probably some high-school punk who
> bought a used cheap-ass 5.0. We don't give a shit about your LX 5.0. I
> don't even know why I'm going into this. But i'll say it....wasting this
> time to inform you...geez...
>
> Simple. Honda offers cars that are simple, ultra-reliable, great gas
> mileage, and some of them are otherwise associated with "fun to drive,
> sport, etc, spritied acceleration, you get the point." Now it doesn't take
> a genius to know that straight from the factory, 99% of these H-badged cars
> don't stand a chance to your Ford car. And it doesn't take a genius to
> figure out that a bigger engine will 99% of the time make more power than a
> smaller engine, making Fords faster than Hondas. I'll also tell you that
> Honda is more synonymous with reliable than your trusted Fords. Most
> performance oriented Fords, straight from the factory run 13-14s in the 1/4
> mile....while Hondas (excluding the NSX) run 14-15s in the 1/4 mile. Simply
> put again, your Fords are faster. If Hondas wanted to be faster, they'd
> modify the car with what the aftermarket offers. And that's why there are
> many fast Hondas running...even as low as 9 seconds. I don't know if you
> consider that fast..but I would say so. All in all, Hondas are made with
> higher quality from hard working Japanese and little of their assembly is
> completed in the United States...usually just final assembly....and your
> Fords...well....comparing their quality to the H cars is out of the
> question...but i will admit they are progressively getting better throughout
> the years. And I'm not just dogging Ford. Most American automobile
> manufactures, this goes the same for....Japanese automakers have always been
> more associated with reliability and quality. And if you want
> performance...or want to be the faster guy...I don't give a shit what you
> drive....it solely depends on much $$$ you wanna dish out.
>
> P.S. Even though your Ford car will smoke the 4-banger crowd. I would
> still say that there is a lot of potential for the little engine...simply
> because it has a very good power to weight ratio. I mean...when you got
> nearly 200 horses and you're only weighing in 2700+ lbs....that's pretty
> good.... Of course if you got a Mustang, that weighs in at 3200+ you're
> gonna have to make a whole lot more power to make that puppy fly.
>
> My last two cents:
>
> I'm not saying anyone is better here. I'm saying if you want
> reliablity, the better miles for your gallon, quality, and not a bad
> foundation for performance, consider a Honda. Although it will be a harder
> road to the path of die-hard performance. We're talking engine swaps, total
> engine work, and sometimes, even forced induction.
> Now if you're just hungry for power, and it really bugs you that your
> sacred torque characteristics aren't there, and you want a performance
> machine out of the box, and you want bang for buck, consider the LS1 Z28.
> My friend owns that one. And it flies. May wanna embrace yourself while
> you're in the seat. I'm still suffering from whiplash..hehe. And it's much
> easier to "soup up" than a Honda...due to it's better initial performance
> standing. Supercharger a Z28, you should run anywhere from 12s to even as
> far as 11s...that's usually the average..I'm sure there may be some that are
> faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe.
>
> Jared Rude wrote in message ...
> >Guy Under The Bridge wrote
> >>Honda, as a company, designs and builds their vehicles with the aim of a
> >>very high level of refinment. Ford is more mass-market oriented and
> >>concentrates of the cost-economy and marketing aspects of the automaker
> >>industry. These are two very different approaches to success; one strives
> >to
> >>gain recognition through excellence of product, the other strives to
> >>increase market-share by streamlined operation and high finiacial
> >>performance.
> >
> >This whole first paragraph is a joke. You don't really believe it do you?
> >Ford and Honda both have the same goals. Sell as many cars as possible, and
> >make as much money, every year, as they possibly can. The "mass market" and
> >"refinement" statements are BS. Maybe Honda spends more money on injection
> >molding tooling so the interiors come out looking nicer, but that's not
> >"refinement." That's a difference in marketing philosophy. If you don't
> >think Honda is in the car business to make money through mass production,
> >then you're an idiot.
> >
> >>Honda builds better engines. That's an absolute statement of simple fact,
> >if
> >>judged on the merits on build quality and engineering. That does not
> >>nescisarily mean Honda engines are more powerful, because most are
> >>relatively weak. Ford isn't concerned with maxamizing power efficiency,
> >>because this is difficult and expensive, and building simpler and larger
> >>engines is more cost-effective, and more effective as a marketing tool.
> >This
> >>is not to say Ford engines are low-quality--in fact, the engine I'm
> >>concerned with in this post--the 4.6L v8 SHO--is an excellent engine in
> >>terms of reliability.
> >
> >The SHO engine only comes in the Taurus'es. It's made by Yamaha. The Cobra
> >engine is made in Detroit by Ford. The Honda engines only have a few
> >advantages over the Ford engines. One would be the design of the cooling
> >passages in the top of the cylinder block to help with cooling of the
> >combustion chamber, another would be counter rotating balance shafts (if
> >they do have them at all) and the last *might* be VTEC. Frankly, VTEC isn't
> >as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of making
> >power than variable valve timing.
> >
> >>Let's examine the difference between small and advanced vs. large and
> >>simple. The trend in racing is to maxamize specific power output--or power
> >>efficiency. Race engines try and maxamize output while minimizing size and
> >>wieght, and this is what Honda tries to do. As a company, Honda expends a
> >>great deal of effort to optimize their engines to greater and greater
> >>specific power output. This is why Honda engines have, over the years,
> >>remained the same size but steadily increased in power. Ford isn't
> >intrested
> >>in building race cars, and is primarily concerned with being on top of the
> >>marketplace--this is good for Ford but bad for racing. This, however, does
> >>not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those engines are optomized
> >for
> >>marketing and sales, not performance.
> >
> >So, production Honda engines are designed for racing? Please, get real.
> >There are very few similarities between the production Honda engines and
> the
> >Indy based Honda engine. They may say that they are the same, but really
> all
> >they *might* share is bore centerline spacing. The blocks aren't the same.
> >The heads aren't the same. The rotating assemblies aren't the same. Nothing
> >is the same. This also goes for the Cobra engine as compared to the
> Cosworth
> >engines. Nothing is the same between them. Except the names on the valve
> >covers.
> >
> >>Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
> >>(excluding NSX):
> >>
> >>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
> >> 4.6L v8 DOHC
> >> 316hp
> >> * 69hp / liter
> >>
> >>HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
> >> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
> >> 205hp
> >> * 114hp / liter
> >
> >Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> >displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> >power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> >displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
> >important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
> >"Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published by
> >McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
> >chapters in any book.
> >
> >>As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this is
> >>meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
> >>greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
> >>specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
> >>factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice. Total
> >>power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
> >
> >Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
> >
> >>But before Honda owners get too cocky, there is a big problem in this
> >>high-performance forumla--acceleration. In racing (when I say 'racing', I
> >>mean real racing, not dragging) the sacrifice of acceleration for power is
> >>acceptable. Unfortunatly for the average driver, acceleration is, perhaps,
> >>the most important performance consideration. In this area a larger engine
> >>will always beat a smaller one, no matter how great the technical
> >advantage.
> >>This is due to a larger stroke, which translates instantly into more
> torque
> >>at the wheels. Torque has nothing to do with speed, but is the measurment
> >of
> >>acceleration (torque literally means 'moment of acceleration'). In simple
> >>terms, torque is accelerating power.
> >
> >OK, with the above paragraph you have proven you know nothing about power
> or
> >what it does in the physical world. Torque accelerates a car. Power, in the
> >real world, boils down to be the rate of change of acceleration. Torque is
> >not "accelerating power." Torque is rotational force, which is converted to
> >linear force by the drivetrain, which accelerates the car. Power is the
> >acceleration which the torque can maintain within the vehicle's speed
> range.
> >
> >>Let's examine the difference in torque output:
> >>
> >>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
> >> 4.6L v8 DOHC
> >> 316lbs-ft
> >> * 69lbs-ft / liter
> >>
> >>HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
> >> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
> >> 130lbs-ft
> >> * 72lbs-ft / liter
> >>
> >>Despite the huge difference in stroke, the Honda makes up for it's size in
> >>sheer high-revving ability, and, again, takes the lead in specific power.
> >>This is a great tribute for Honda engineers who can build an engine like
> >>no-one else can, but 130lbs-ft will always lose to 312lbs-ft.In addition,
> >>the peak torque is available much earlier in the powerband (the number of
> >>revs) of the Ford than it is in the Honda, and the difference in low-end
> >>torque--the torque that matters in a street race--is huge.
> >
> >The difference in torque is due more to total displacement than it is to
> >stroke in this application. the 302 in my car only has a thre inch stroke,
> >but it still makes mor towque than a Honda four cylinder of greater than
> >three inch stroke.
> >
> >>So which road applications are best for Ford and Honda? If all you care
> >>about is dragging--get a Mustang because no Honda in existance will beat
> >you
> >>on the strip short of an NSX. If you care about speed and lap performance,
> >>get a Type-R because the Mustang will struggle just to keep from LOSING
> >>power at the high powerbands, and also falls drastically short in handling
> >>and transmission, but we're talking about engines here.
> >
> >I'm assuming you mean handling and *transition.* The fact that you got the
> >word wrong, means you don't know what you are talking about. Transition is
> >possibly the most basic of road racing terminology.
> >
> >>In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a
> $21k
> >>Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS it,
> >>blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in a
> >>blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
> >>replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not up
> >to
> >>extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the Si,
> >>GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies.
> If
> >>you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a Cobra.
> >
> >You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs. There
> >are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
> >Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you
> will
> >belive me, but it's true.
> >
> >>Guy Under The Bridge
> >>Super Genius!
> >
> >More like mental midget. Don't bother posting stuff you know nothing about.
> >
> >--
> >Jared Rude
> >1990 LX 5.0
> >Lots faster than Marc Fencil's Camaro
> >remove "nospamforme" to reply
> >
> >
headbone
hahaha
e
Josh Turner
headbone wrote:
>
> hey man, ford has *nothing* to do with themillenia engine or the miller cycle. I
> suppose that you think that ford designs the miata and Rx7 engines too?
>
> e
While not wholly owned by Ford, Mazda is controlled by Ford, and is
sufficiently integrated into Ford's global operations that (merely as an
example) if you went to www.ford.com, you'd see Mazda's name right up
there with all the other Ford divisions. The CEO of Mazda is a Ford guy.
Mazda hasn't been integrated in the global vehicle center design
approach, but to the degree that all Mazda employees are, at this point,
working for Ford, then I'd say yes, Ford had some involvement with these
designs.
Besides, even if they weren't designed initially by employees with "Ford
Motor Company" on their paychecks, they're part of the Ford Motor
Company engineering stable now, and Ford does get the profits on each
one sold. You're lucky I didn't include the Volvo V70 R...
Eric
> Liao <sine...@ionet.net> wrote in message
> news:7gf0i3$3qr$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
> > Why does this fucking Jare Rude keep posting on the Honda Newsgroups if
> he's
> > got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how
> something
> > bad about Honda...why don't you go to the Mustang forums and discuss your
> > fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners
> and
> > enthusiasts to discuss Hondas.
> Hey, numbnuts. Welcome to Usenet - it's called crossposting. Check the
> bloody headers.
>
> > It's not here so you can post your non-educated messages on here.
> "Uneducated", O Wise One. And I'd say that Jared's posts exude a little
> something that most do not - intellect.
>
> >You're probably some high-school punk who bought a used cheap-ass 5.0.
> Actually, at the threat of revealing info that Jared may not want spread
> (though all accessible through DejaNews), he's actually a mechanical
> engineer at Motorola. Not quite "some high-school punk"you freak of DNA
> experimentation.
>
> > Simple. Honda offers cars that are simple, ultra-reliable, great gas
> > Most performance oriented Fords, straight from the factory run 13-14s in
> the 1/4
> > mile....while Hondas (excluding the NSX) run 14-15s in the 1/4 mile.
> 14-15s if there's a gale force wind coming from behind.
>
> >Simply put again, your Fords are faster. If Hondas wanted to be faster,
> they'd
> > modify the car with what the aftermarket offers. And that's why there are
> > many fast Hondas running...even as low as 9 seconds.
> You do know that there are 9sec streetable Mustangs running around (quite a
> few from what I understand) - would you want to drive one of those 9sec
> Hondas in rush hour?
>
> > Supercharger a Z28, you should run anywhere from 12s to even as
> > far as 11s...that's usually the average..I'm sure there may be some that
> are
> > faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe
> Nah - no supercharger needed necessarily. "Popular Hotrodding" (?) this
> month has a LS1 Camaro running high 12s with exhaust and a shot of nitrous.
> A supercharger is more fun, though.
High 12's, that's it? Are you sure about that time? One of the mags, I think
Hot Rod, got a bone stock LS1 to run a 12.9. I imagine some nitrous should get
it into at least the low 12's, if not better.
Dan Bender
>
> A 99 Mustang GT is lucky to run a high 13 second 1/4 mile when stock.
>
> Sounds to me like that extra power isn't being 'eaten'.
This is to "The Guy Under A Bridge"... I have owned both of these vehicles
in this comparison. A 97 Acura Integra GS-R 5spd and a 99 Black Mustang GT
5spd. And guess what you can talk all the shit you want, all the specs you
want, but guess what, My 99 GT totally destroys that GS-R in every aspect I
can think of. Cornering? Guess what the GT whoops it, raw power and
acceleration, the GT whoops it. I have driven both hard in a variety of
circumstances, and I KNOW from experience the GT beats out the GS-R in every
measurement you can take, and by a wide margin I might add. And they are
the same price, now whos getting the better car??? Don't get me wrong the
GS-R was a fun to drive well performing car, but its no match for the GT.
This is fact, and I have proven this to myself and others who have riden in
both of my cars.
Dan
99 Black GT 5spd
Dan Bender
Dan
99 Black Mustang GT 5spd
Dan Bender
issue.
99 Mustang GT
Price as tested - $23,570
Skidpad - .87g
Speed thru slalom- 62.7mph
Stopping distance 60mph - 128ft
Stopping distance 80mph - 228ft
99 Acura NSX
Price as tested - $88,136
Skidpad - .89g
Speed thru slalom - 63.0 mph
stopping distance 60mph - 123ft
Stopping distance 80mph -212ft
Ok, over 60 grand more and look how damn close the handling numbers are. Is
it worth it? Hell no! Don't get me wrong the NSX is a wonderful car, but
for 10 grand in mods, the stang would run circles around the NSX, and save
ya 50 grand!! So don't be talking about modifying a mustang would be
expensive.
newbie steve
headbone wrote:
> but it would still be a mustank
> hahaha
Boy, aren't you the clever one? The only argument you're left with is to resort
to childish plays on words? How sad for you,..really.If I were to refer to your
car as a "gaylude", wouldn't you think that's pretty lame? See, it goes both
ways.
Josh Turner
USER wrote:
>
> >
> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
> >handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
> >dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
> >spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
> >up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
> >
>
> Not only it can win, but it already won! Drivetrain speaking, no Acura can
> approach the extreme capabilities of the beefed up Pinto (particularly with
> an added force induction).
>
> But I don't want to drive a Pinto. Now the Pinto has now an independant
> rear suspension; the Pinto is improving. But I don't like Pintos.
Very witty. It would be even more witty if there were any technical
relationship at all between the Mustang and the Pinto. There isn't. The
old Mustang II (which went, unlamented, to pony car heaven 21 years ago)
was based on the Pinto, but since 1979, the Mustang has been based on
the Fox platform, which postdates the Pinto platform by several years.
For a while, Ford used a Pinto derived 4 cylinder in the Mustangs, but
that engine was discontinued 5 years ago.
So, to sum up, Mustang does not equal Pinto.
Now, if you want to criticize the Mustang, at least get your facts
straight: The Fox platform was originally shared with the Fairmont,
which opens up a wealth of barbs, jokes and jabs (which most likely have
all been heard before). Of course, since then the Mustang's version has
been heavily modified, but any honest Mustang enthusiast will admit that
the Fox lineage is the Mustang's Achille's heel.
OTOH, it's still faster than a Honda.
Pheare
>
>> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
>> >handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
>> >dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
>> >spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
>> >up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
>
>Tell you what - every aftermarket web site you can find for Honda performance,
>I'll find two for Mustang performance. Deal?
I'll bet you could find 5 to his every 1.
I personally like both ford and honda and have owned multiple vehicles
from each company (3 mustangs, a civic and a prelude) over the years.
And yes, while the civic is the "king" of the aftermarket as far as
imports go, there is no comparison to the aftermarket for the mustang.
How many aftermarket mags are there devoted to just civics or even to
Hondas as a whole? None that I've seen. There are at least 3 or 4
mags devoted to mustang performance; each with pages and pages
(actually more pages than I'd like in a magazine) of aftermarket
goodies from dozens of vendors.
>Dave
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Pheare
ICQ 33763250
pheare@**home.com
(remove ** to reply via email)
cr...@home.com
>How many aftermarket mags are there devoted to just civics or even to
>Hondas as a whole? None that I've seen. There are at least 3 or 4
>mags devoted to mustang performance; each with pages and pages
>(actually more pages than I'd like in a magazine) of aftermarket
>goodies from dozens of vendors.
I agree. I just picked up a magazine called "Mustangs and Fast Fords".
It is LOADED with after market parts. My only complaint with the
magazine is that it's way too hard-core. All they mod's a very engine
intensive and hard-core. SCC is all rims, springs and phantasy cars.
The Mustang mag is for serious do-it-yourselfers and racers.
Joshua Lowe
<guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:00:58 GMT, row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>
>>Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
>>there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
>
>And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
No. Not sharing the same internal components, intakes, heads, etc.
An 'engine' is more than just a block.
>>4600 cubic centimeters!
>
>Very good.
Well, you asked..
>4600 / 1800 = 2.6
>320 / 205 = 1.6
>
>An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
Fantastic, and it still loses. Bummer, eh?
>The numbers aren't going away.
Actually, they are. Into my rearview mirror, fading into the
distance..
>>You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
>>incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
>
>I'm too tired to gear down to your vocabulary.
"I am a troll."
>Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
>Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
>Cobra and Civic DX
Ah, my favorite, time-worn argument. "I could buy car X for Xx
dollars, or I could buy car Y for (Xx+Yy) dollars, or I could just put
in an extra Yy dollars into the car that costs Xx and it will be just
as good or better!"
The problem with that is that if you have the $20,000 lying around to
modify your car, you're not going to buy a Civic DX unless you're part
of a race team or are selling parts and need a demo car. Individuals
don't do that. Individuals with $20k cash lying around to dump on
modifying a car buy a hell of a lot nicer car than a Civic OR a Cobra
to start with. Your argument is a fatally flawed one, especially with
the number you quote. If the # were say $5,000, it would be a lot
more feasible.
Pheare
wrote:
>On Sun, 02 May 1999 22:45:31 GMT, pheare@**home.com (Pheare) wrote:
>
>>How many aftermarket mags are there devoted to just civics or even to
>>Hondas as a whole? None that I've seen. There are at least 3 or 4
>>mags devoted to mustang performance; each with pages and pages
>>(actually more pages than I'd like in a magazine) of aftermarket
>>goodies from dozens of vendors.
>
>I agree. I just picked up a magazine called "Mustangs and Fast Fords".
Actually it's Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords. :)
>
>It is LOADED with after market parts. My only complaint with the
>magazine is that it's way too hard-core. All they mod's a very engine
>intensive and hard-core. SCC is all rims, springs and phantasy cars.
>The Mustang mag is for serious do-it-yourselfers and racers.
Yeah, I guess it all depends on what you are looking for. Quite often
MM&FF will have "bolt-on" features which deal with headers, exhaust,
intake manifolds, superchargers, underdrive pullies, etc.
5.0 Liter is a pretty good mag as well, it doesn't seem to be as
"hardcore" as MM&FF.
C E White
> same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds weak,
> huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
> 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
> by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
> like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
At least I can fit in a Mustang. To ride in an Inegra I need a hack saw to cut a
hole in the roof.
Ed
Grier, Brian
>
> FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
>
>
> Samurai
> Heritage
> Option
>
The engine in the SHO is made by Yamaha, but it is not
a 4.6L V8. I'll let it slide that the SHO should have
been "Cobra."
The nit to pick with his argument is that as a former
Formula Ford, F2000 driver, we did not care much about
hp/L, but did car about hp/lb.
Basically if two engines are being considered for your
car that have identical power bands, and reliability,
you make your choice based upon the weight of the
engine. There are many times we chose a heavier engine
for reliability reasons. But since power bands are never
identical there is an art to selecting an engine that
will keep you in contention for the lead.
In last years F1 series Honda engines dominated the series,
while also causing the most DNFs. Why? Particularly when they
had a 20% greater chance of breaking down? The answer was they
weighed 50lb less than the next best engine. The Honda engine
weighed 90lbs less than Ford's engine, which just happen to be
the third most winning engine in the series, and had higher
reliability. The Honda powered teams took a risk of the Honda
engine and overall it paid off for them.
This year F1 will be interesting because Ford's new engine
is 75lb lighter than last year, with a 10% increase in power.
I do not have any information on this years engine from Honda.
But I have read that several of last years top teams have
pulled their Honda engines in favor of the new Ford engine.
Brian
'82GL/302/T-Tops (original owner)
Stilian Elenkov
Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
>
> > Ford and Honda both have the same goals. Sell as many cars as possible,
> and
> > make as much money, every year, as they possibly can. The "mass market"
> and
> > "refinement" statements are BS.
>
> Nowhere did I say Honda doesn't want to make money--I said they want to make
> money by attracting customers to a reputation of excellence. Ford makes
> money by concentrating on finacial performance, which they do through
> maximizing cost-profit margins. In other words, Ford seeks to be sucessful
> through marketing and streamlined managment and Honda does it through
> attracted people away from it's competitors with quality. All you have to do
> is walk onto a lot and examine the build quality to determine which camp
> which automaker falls into.
>
> > Maybe Honda spends more money on injection
> > molding tooling so the interiors come out looking nicer, but that's not
> > "refinement."
>
> Yes it is. It's spending more money on making a car in anticipation of the
> added quality will attract more customers to your product. It's refinment in
> that is betters the functionality of the car.
>
> > So, production Honda engines are designed for racing? Please, get real.
>
> No, Honda builds a different engine for every car they make. If the car is
> meant for cargo hauling, it's engine will reflect that utility (99 Odyssey
> 3.5L v6 220lbs-ft). If it's meant for racing, it will be tuned for that (98
> Integra Type-R 1.8L 4-cyl 205hp). Ford does not make a production engine for
> racing.
Are you aware that Ford (as much as don't like to admit it) makes F1
engines that have been winning (still are) more titles than Honda did
ever. Just because you do not know about them does not mean they do not
exist.
Stilian
Clint Law
SATPRS wrote in message <7gds8f$oue$1...@nntp2.atl.mindspring.net>...
>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>
>
>But isnt that "Ford" engine really made by Yamaha?
>
>Samurai
>Heritage
>Option
Not the one he mention, he is actaully referring to the 4.6 DOHC Ford
Modular V8 out of a Mustang Cobra, and for some reason called it a SHO. The
3.0L and 3.2L DOHC V6's in pre 95 Taurus SHO's (I thought it stood for Super
High Output...) were designed and assembled by Yamaha (and was BTW, probably
thre unreliable Ford drivetrain from the 90s), and the post 95 SHO's used a
Ford designed and Yamaha built 3.4L DOHC V8 (a really neat motor, 60 degree
V8, reverse flow cooling, and makes a good amount of power as well - if only
it came with a manual tranny)
>
>
>newbie steve wrote in message <372A48DD...@stormfront.com>...
>>Guy under the bridge wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That does not nescisarily mean Honda engines are more powerful, because
>most
>>> are
>>> relatively weak.
>>
>>I couldn't have said it better myself,..although I could have spelled it
>better
>>
>>
>>> This, however, does not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those
>engines
>>> are optomized for
>>> marketing and sales, not performance.
>>
>>An engine "optomized" for marketing? Please explain this theory.
>>
>>>
>>> Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
>>> (excluding NSX):
>>>
>>> FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>>> 316hp
>>> * 69hp / liter
>>>
>>> HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>>> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>>> 205hp
>>> * 114hp / liter
>>>
>>> As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this
is
>>> meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
>>> greater specific power output.
>>
>>Total power is meaningless for performance consideration? I hate to break
>this
>>to you but an engine's performance is measured in HP and torque. "Car
>>performance" is much more complex, but this thread is about engines,
>judging
>>from the subject. The Cobra engine makes tons more HP and torque than the
>1.8L
>>VTEC. Period. It is not as efficient as the Honda engine, but efficiency
>and
>>pure performance are very different things. For example, let's say Honda
>makes
>>a new .5 liter engine that puts out a whopping 100hp....A technological
>marvel
>>of efficiency with 200hp per liter! That's all great and stuff, but slap
>that
>>engine in a Prelude and it'll be one of the slowest Preludes on the
planet.
>>
>>
>>> To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
>>> specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
>>> factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
>Total
>>> power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>>
>>What do technical standpoints have to do with raw pure performance?
>>"Technically", the type-R engine outperforms the Cobra engine only in
terms
>of
>>fuel economy.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But before Honda owners get too cocky, there is a big problem in this
>>> high-performance forumla--acceleration. In racing (when I say 'racing',
I
>>> mean real racing, not dragging) the sacrifice of acceleration for power
>is
>>> acceptable.
>>
>>Plenty of people consider drag racing to be a form of "real racing". Just
>>because most Hondas suck in this type of race, it's not "real
racing"...ok,
>I
>>get it now...
>>
>>
>>> Unfortunatly for the average driver, acceleration is, perhaps,
>>> the most important performance consideration. In this area a larger
>engine
>>> will always beat a smaller one, no matter how great the technical
>advantage.
>>> This is due to a larger stroke, which translates instantly into more
>torque
>>> at the wheels. Torque has nothing to do with speed, but is the
measurment
>of
>>> acceleration (torque literally means 'moment of acceleration'). In
simple
>>> terms, torque is accelerating power.
>>>
>>> Let's examine the difference in torque output:
>>>
>>> FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>>> 316lbs-ft
>>> * 69lbs-ft / liter
>>>
>>> HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>>> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>>> 130lbs-ft
>>> * 72lbs-ft / liter
>>>
>>> Despite the huge difference in stroke, the Honda makes up for it's size
>in
>>> sheer high-revving ability, and, again, takes the lead in specific
power.
>>> This is a great tribute for Honda engineers who can build an engine like
>>> no-one else can, but 130lbs-ft will always lose to 312lbs-ft.In
addition,
>>> the peak torque is available much earlier in the powerband (the number
of
>>> revs) of the Ford than it is in the Honda, and the difference in low-end
>>> torque--the torque that matters in a street race--is huge.
>>
>>Exactyly. But now I'm confused,... why isn't "specific tourque" much more
>>important than "total torque", like you say it is with HP?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So which road applications are best for Ford and Honda? If all you care
>>> about is dragging--get a Mustang because no Honda in existance will beat
>you
>>> on the strip short of an NSX. If you care about speed and lap
>performance,
>>> get a Type-R because the Mustang will struggle just to keep from LOSING
>>> power at the high powerbands, and also falls drastically short in
>handling
>>> and transmission, but we're talking about engines here.
>>
>>Since you yourself created this thread about engine comparisons, why
branch
>off
>>into discussing lap performance, handling, etc..? As long as we're here,
>>explain to me how the Mustang falls drastically short in transmission?
>>transmission of what exactly?
>>
>>> --
Clint Law
Guy Under The Bridge wrote in message ...
>Josh Turner <sh...@umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:372A8627...@umich.edu...
>
>> What's a "better" engine, if not the one that does the job better? Put
>> one of those vaunted 1.8L VTEC lumps in a Taurus, and it wouldn't be
>> able to get out of its own way.
>
>Since the average American car owner doesn't understand a thing past total
>horsepower and torque, I can understand the blind spot your coming out of.
>Yes, the 1.8L (B18 family) would be hard-pressed to 'do the job' in a
>Taurus, because the Taurus is a big, sloppy, heavy land cruiser, and it
>needs a large-dosplacment engine. Now this is where it gets interesting--is
>the Taurus a big heavy car because it supposed to be or because it HAS to
be
>to support a big, cheap and inefficient engine?
Okay, first off - that Taurus isn't that much heavier than a Accord, maybe
300 lbs. Second, the largest motor to come in a regular Taurus since 95 is
a 3.0 L V6, making 200 HP and 205 lb*ft. of torque. That is 66.6 HP/L,
and 68.3 lb*ft of torque per liter.
>The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For the
>same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
weak,
>huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
>1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
>by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
>like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
1000 lbs? What the hell are you smoking. If you are luck an Integra GS-R
will weigh 2900 lbs, and a Mustang maybe 3400, that looks like 500 lbs max
difference to me (being very generous on both ends)- about half of your
fictional numbers. Oh, and you will be very surprised when that Mustang GT
whips by your Integra in the curves won't you? Look at the real numbers for
a car before your post and you may look like a super genious, but I doubt
it.
> In the American market, where there are
>> no taxes based on engine size, there's no reason to build a high-strung,
>> high specific output engine, except to impress the bench racers.
>>
>> > Let's examine the difference between small and advanced vs. large and
>> > simple. The trend in racing is to maxamize specific power output--or
>power
>> > efficiency. Race engines try and maxamize output while minimizing size
>and
>> > wieght, and this is what Honda tries to do. As a company, Honda expends
>a
>> > great deal of effort to optimize their engines to greater and greater
>> > specific power output.
>>
>> OK. Let's examine why race engines are like this. Why do Formula 1
>> designers spend millions of $$$ on molybdenum valve covers and iridium
>> throttle blades? It's because the sanctioning bodies that control racing
>> typically limit the maximum displacement that an engine can have. This
>> is an arbitrary limit that is simply not present in the United States'
>> market. Note that, without these limits, race designers would likley go
>> to a larger, lower-specific output powerplant to improve reliability,
>> tractability, and low-end torque, especially if the race were a 100,000
>> mile enduro with lots of stop-and-go driving, like most consumers engage
>> in.
>>
>> So, other than marketing, WTF is the point of building a 240 hp aspo
>> 2.0L for the street? Why build an engine that you have to wind out to 8K
>> to get any power out of, when you could build (for example) a DOHC, 2.X
>> or 3.X liter I or V6 that would likely be dimensionally similar, weigh
>> about the same, get relatively similar fuel economy, and be *far* more
>> tractible?
>>
>>
>> > This is why Honda engines have, over the years,
>> > remained the same size but steadily increased in power.
>>
>> And Ford's haven't? The current Mustang GT engine is 6/10s of a liter
>> smaller than its predecessor, but makes at least 35 more hp (45 v. 56
>> hp/L, FWIW). The Cobra engine bumps that up to 69 hp/L. Ford's modern
>> mid-size V6 makes 210 hp from the same displacement that used to yield
>> 145 (48 v. 65 hp/L). And in the CD class, the Duratec 2.5 makes 80 hp/L,
>> nearly double what the old engine could do.
>>
>> The reason that Ford's engineers have yet to build a normally aspo
>> engine that breaks 100 hp/L is not because they can't, but because
>> there's absolutely no reason to.
>>
>> > Ford isn't intrested
>> > in building race cars,
>>
>> Tell that to Roush and Michael Kranefuss. Tell that to the Cosworth DF
>> series, that have won more F1 and Indy races than Honda has ever heard
>> of.
>>
>> > and is primarily concerned with being on top of the
>> > marketplace--this is good for Ford but bad for racing.
>>
>> Huh? You really lost me here. Selling cars is good for Ford. Selling
>> cars is good for Honda. Anything that helps that goal, for either
>> company, is good.
>>
>> > This, however, does
>> > not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those engines are
optomized
>for
>> > marketing and sales, not performance.
>>
>> Heaven forbid that an engineer take into account the user's needs when
>> designing a product. Building a "good" widget means nothing unless it
>> does what people want it to do.
>>
>> > Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
>> > (excluding NSX):
>>
>> Why is the Romeo Ford's best engine? By what criteria?
>>
>> > FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
>> > 316hp
>> > * 69hp / liter
>> >
>> > HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>> > 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>> > 205hp
>> > * 114hp / liter
>> >
>> > As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this
>is
>> > meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
>> > greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70%
>more
>> > specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a
stock
>> > factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
>Total
>> > power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>>
>> This is goofy on so many levels, that I don't know where to start.
>>
>> -As someone else mentioned, there is no 4.6L "SHO" engine. There is a
>> 3.4L SHO engine, built mainly by Yamaha.
>>
>> -The power output of the DOHC 4.6L Romeo V8 is 320, not 316.
>>
>> -The Romeo V8 is not Ford's highest specific output, normally aspo
>> engine. Off the top of my head, I can think of the Jaguar AJ-V6 (80
>> hp/L), the 2.5L Duratec V6 (80 hp/L), and the Jaguar AJ26 (73 hp/L), and
>> even the RWD 3.0 Duratec (70 hp/L). All of these engines are high
>> volume, real mass production powerplants, as opposed to the essentially
>> hand made VTEC-R.
>>
>> -A "racer" (meaning someone who actually races, not someone who just
>> reads the stats panel in Motor Trend every month) cares very little
>> about the specific output of their engine. They care about performance,
>> and high specific output does not guarantee high performance. To use an
>> example that is a continuous pain in the ass for the Mustang community:
>> The ultra-low tech, pushrod, 56 hp/L LS1 Z28 regularly puts the smack on
>> the much more high-tech, DOHC 4vpc 69 hp/L Cobra. And either one would
>> have that Integra for lunch.
>>
>>
>>
>> > But before Honda owners get too cocky, there is a big problem in this
>> > high-performance forumla--acceleration. In racing (when I say 'racing',
>I
>> > mean real racing, not dragging) the sacrifice of acceleration for power
>is
>> > acceptable.
>>
>> What? "The sacrifice of acceleration for power is acceptable?" What the
>> hell does that mean? The Integra sacrifices both acceleration *and*
>> power to the Cobra.
>>
>> > Unfortunatly for the average driver, acceleration is, perhaps,
>> > the most important performance consideration. In this area a larger
>engine
>> > will always beat a smaller one, no matter how great the technical
>advantage.
>>
>> AHA! We've finally seen the light, then, have we? But, of course, even
>> this isn't always true. My SVT Contour could devour a 1978 Firebird 6.6
>> liter--sometimes, the technical advantage is larger than the
>> displacement advantage, but not necessarily.
>>
>> > This is due to a larger stroke, which translates instantly into more
>torque
>> > at the wheels.
>>
>> Learn something about engines. An engine's displacement is defined by
>> both bore and stroke. A "larger" engine might have a longer stroke, or a
>> bigger bore, or both.
>>
>>
>> > Torque has nothing to do with speed, but is the measurment of
>> > acceleration (torque literally means 'moment of acceleration'). In
>simple
>> > terms, torque is accelerating power.
>> >
>> > Let's examine the difference in torque output:
>> >
>> > FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
>> > 316lbs-ft
>> > * 69lbs-ft / liter
>> >
>> > HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>> > 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>> > 130lbs-ft
>> > * 72lbs-ft / liter
>> >
>> > Despite the huge difference in stroke, the Honda makes up for it's size
>in
>> > sheer high-revving ability, and, again, takes the lead in specific
>power.
>> > This is a great tribute for Honda engineers who can build an engine
like
>> > no-one else can, but 130lbs-ft will always lose to 312lbs-ft.
>>
>> OK. True. So why do I want the little engine again?
>>
>> > In addition,
>> > the peak torque is available much earlier in the powerband (the number
>of
>> > revs) of the Ford than it is in the Honda, and the difference in
low-end
>> > torque--the torque that matters in a street race--is huge.
>>
>> The little engine is looking better and better.
>>
>> > So which road applications are best for Ford and Honda? If all you care
>> > about is dragging--get a Mustang because no Honda in existance will
beat
>you
>> > on the strip short of an NSX. If you care about speed and lap
>performance,
>> > get a Type-R because the Mustang will struggle just to keep from LOSING
>> > power at the high powerbands, and also falls drastically short in
>handling
>> > and transmission, but we're talking about engines here.
>>
>> So the lower horsepower Type R will beat the higher horsepower Mustang
>> at higher speeds, because the Mustang is "struggling not to lose power?"
>> This is simply incorrect. First, you're going to gear the two cars
>> differently, so at a given road speed the engine RPM aren't going to be
>> anything like the same. Second, once you get rolling, the total hp
>> measurement of a car is far more relevant to top speed than the total
>> torque measurement, or the engines specific output. Generally, the car
>> with more hp is going to have a higher top speed, even if the smaller,
>> lighter car could keep up off the line.
>>
>> Bottom line? Without a vast difference in specific output, a big engine
>> beats a little one, all the time, in every circusmtance and every
>> condition. Period.
Clint Law
Liao wrote in message <7gf0i3$3qr$1...@ionews.ionet.net>...
>Why does this fucking Jare Rude keep posting on the Honda Newsgroups if
he's
>got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how something
>bad about Honda...why don't you go to the Mustang forums and discuss your
>fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners and
>non-educated messages on here. You're probably some high-school punk who
>bought a used cheap-ass 5.0. We don't give a shit about your LX 5.0. I
>don't even know why I'm going into this. But i'll say it....wasting this
>time to inform you...geez...
Well, maybe he thought this group was interesting, or maybe it was because
the original poster crossposted his message to 5 different groupe, including
the Musatng newsgroup.
And if you would read his sig, you would realize he is a Mechanical engineer
for Motorola with a Old, overweight (3000 lbs) Mustang hatchbakc, capable of
an incredibly slow 12.9 in the quarter for a massive *total* investment of
$5K (Normilly aspirated, BTW). Not to mention the car is about 10 years
old. I would really like to see a Honda motor put out wnough power to get a
car into the 12s and still stay in one pice for 10 years - yeah right.
You make some other decent points in you message, very much worth reading.
I would suggest you go slow on the flaming in the first part of your
messages and there might be some usefull discussion about the last parts....
Just my 2 cents.
>P.S. Even though your Ford car will smoke the 4-banger crowd. I would
>still say that there is a lot of potential for the little engine...simply
>because it has a very good power to weight ratio. I mean...when you got
>nearly 200 horses and you're only weighing in 2700+ lbs....that's pretty
>good.... Of course if you got a Mustang, that weighs in at 3200+ you're
>gonna have to make a whole lot more power to make that puppy fly.
>
>My last two cents:
>
> I'm not saying anyone is better here. I'm saying if you want
>reliablity, the better miles for your gallon, quality, and not a bad
>foundation for performance, consider a Honda. Although it will be a harder
>road to the path of die-hard performance. We're talking engine swaps,
total
>engine work, and sometimes, even forced induction.
> Now if you're just hungry for power, and it really bugs you that your
>sacred torque characteristics aren't there, and you want a performance
>machine out of the box, and you want bang for buck, consider the LS1 Z28.
>My friend owns that one. And it flies. May wanna embrace yourself while
>you're in the seat. I'm still suffering from whiplash..hehe. And it's
much
>easier to "soup up" than a Honda...due to it's better initial performance
>standing. Supercharger a Z28, you should run anywhere from 12s to even as
>far as 11s...that's usually the average..I'm sure there may be some that
are
>faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe.
>
>
>Jared Rude wrote in message ...
>>Guy Under The Bridge wrote
>>>Honda, as a company, designs and builds their vehicles with the aim of a
>>>very high level of refinment. Ford is more mass-market oriented and
>>>concentrates of the cost-economy and marketing aspects of the automaker
>>>industry. These are two very different approaches to success; one strives
>>to
>>>gain recognition through excellence of product, the other strives to
>>>increase market-share by streamlined operation and high finiacial
>>>performance.
>>
>>This whole first paragraph is a joke. You don't really believe it do you?
>>Ford and Honda both have the same goals. Sell as many cars as possible,
and
>>make as much money, every year, as they possibly can. The "mass market"
and
>>"refinement" statements are BS. Maybe Honda spends more money on injection
>>molding tooling so the interiors come out looking nicer, but that's not
>>"refinement." That's a difference in marketing philosophy. If you don't
>>think Honda is in the car business to make money through mass production,
>>then you're an idiot.
>>
>>>Honda builds better engines. That's an absolute statement of simple fact,
>>if
>>>judged on the merits on build quality and engineering. That does not
>>>nescisarily mean Honda engines are more powerful, because most are
>>>relatively weak. Ford isn't concerned with maxamizing power efficiency,
>>>because this is difficult and expensive, and building simpler and larger
>>>engines is more cost-effective, and more effective as a marketing tool.
>>This
>>>is not to say Ford engines are low-quality--in fact, the engine I'm
>>>concerned with in this post--the 4.6L v8 SHO--is an excellent engine in
>>>terms of reliability.
>>
>>The SHO engine only comes in the Taurus'es. It's made by Yamaha. The Cobra
>>engine is made in Detroit by Ford. The Honda engines only have a few
>>advantages over the Ford engines. One would be the design of the cooling
>>passages in the top of the cylinder block to help with cooling of the
>>combustion chamber, another would be counter rotating balance shafts (if
>>they do have them at all) and the last *might* be VTEC. Frankly, VTEC
isn't
>>as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
making
>>power than variable valve timing.
>>
>>>Let's examine the difference between small and advanced vs. large and
>>>simple. The trend in racing is to maxamize specific power output--or
power
>>>efficiency. Race engines try and maxamize output while minimizing size
and
>>>wieght, and this is what Honda tries to do. As a company, Honda expends a
>>>great deal of effort to optimize their engines to greater and greater
>>>specific power output. This is why Honda engines have, over the years,
>>>remained the same size but steadily increased in power. Ford isn't
>>intrested
>>>in building race cars, and is primarily concerned with being on top of
the
>>>marketplace--this is good for Ford but bad for racing. This, however,
does
>>>not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those engines are optomized
>>for
>>>marketing and sales, not performance.
>>
>>So, production Honda engines are designed for racing? Please, get real.
>>There are very few similarities between the production Honda engines and
>the
>>Indy based Honda engine. They may say that they are the same, but really
>all
>>they *might* share is bore centerline spacing. The blocks aren't the same.
>>The heads aren't the same. The rotating assemblies aren't the same.
Nothing
>>is the same. This also goes for the Cobra engine as compared to the
>Cosworth
>>engines. Nothing is the same between them. Except the names on the valve
>>covers.
>>
>>>Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
>>>(excluding NSX):
>>>
>>>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>>> 316hp
>>> * 69hp / liter
>>>
>>>HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>>> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>>> 205hp
>>> * 114hp / liter
>>
>>Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
>>displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
>>power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
>>displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
>>important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
>>"Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published by
>>McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
>>chapters in any book.
>>
>>>As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this is
>>>meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
>>>greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
>>>specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
>>>factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
Total
>>>power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>>
>>Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
>>
>>>But before Honda owners get too cocky, there is a big problem in this
>>>high-performance forumla--acceleration. In racing (when I say 'racing', I
>>>mean real racing, not dragging) the sacrifice of acceleration for power
is
>>>acceptable. Unfortunatly for the average driver, acceleration is,
perhaps,
>>>the most important performance consideration. In this area a larger
engine
>>>will always beat a smaller one, no matter how great the technical
>>advantage.
>>>This is due to a larger stroke, which translates instantly into more
>torque
>>>at the wheels. Torque has nothing to do with speed, but is the measurment
>>of
>>>acceleration (torque literally means 'moment of acceleration'). In simple
>>>terms, torque is accelerating power.
>>
>>OK, with the above paragraph you have proven you know nothing about power
>or
>>what it does in the physical world. Torque accelerates a car. Power, in
the
>>real world, boils down to be the rate of change of acceleration. Torque is
>>not "accelerating power." Torque is rotational force, which is converted
to
>>linear force by the drivetrain, which accelerates the car. Power is the
>>acceleration which the torque can maintain within the vehicle's speed
>range.
>>
>>>Let's examine the difference in torque output:
>>>
>>>FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>>> 4.6L v8 DOHC
>>> 316lbs-ft
>>> * 69lbs-ft / liter
>>>
>>>HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>>> 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>>> 130lbs-ft
>>> * 72lbs-ft / liter
>>>
>>>Despite the huge difference in stroke, the Honda makes up for it's size
in
>>>sheer high-revving ability, and, again, takes the lead in specific power.
>>>This is a great tribute for Honda engineers who can build an engine like
>>>no-one else can, but 130lbs-ft will always lose to 312lbs-ft.In addition,
>>>the peak torque is available much earlier in the powerband (the number of
>>>revs) of the Ford than it is in the Honda, and the difference in low-end
>>>torque--the torque that matters in a street race--is huge.
>>
>>The difference in torque is due more to total displacement than it is to
>>stroke in this application. the 302 in my car only has a thre inch stroke,
>>but it still makes mor towque than a Honda four cylinder of greater than
>>three inch stroke.
>>
>>>So which road applications are best for Ford and Honda? If all you care
>>>about is dragging--get a Mustang because no Honda in existance will beat
>>you
>>>on the strip short of an NSX. If you care about speed and lap
performance,
>>>get a Type-R because the Mustang will struggle just to keep from LOSING
>>>power at the high powerbands, and also falls drastically short in
handling
>>>and transmission, but we're talking about engines here.
>>
>>I'm assuming you mean handling and *transition.* The fact that you got the
>>word wrong, means you don't know what you are talking about. Transition is
>>possibly the most basic of road racing terminology.
>>
>>>In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a
>$21k
>>>Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS
it,
>>>blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in
a
>>>blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
>>>replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not up
>>to
>>>extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the
Si,
>>>GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies.
>If
>>>you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a Cobra.
>>
>>You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs.
There
>>are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
>>Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you
>will
>>belive me, but it's true.
>>
>>>Guy Under The Bridge
>>>Super Genius!
>>
Clint Law
Eric wrote in message <372C6B22...@aol.com>...
>Yossarian wrote:
>
>> Liao <sine...@ionet.net> wrote in message
>> news:7gf0i3$3qr$1...@ionews.ionet.net...
>> he's
>> > got nothing good to say? Every time he's posting, it's about how
>> something
>> > bad about Honda...why don't you go to the Mustang forums and discuss
your
>> > fucking problems about Hondas, dumbass. This forum is for Honda owners
>> and
>> > enthusiasts to discuss Hondas.
>> bloody headers.
>>
>> something that most do not - intellect.
>>
>> > faster...so don't go flaming me you dumbasses...hehe
>> Nah - no supercharger needed necessarily. "Popular Hotrodding" (?) this
>> month has a LS1 Camaro running high 12s with exhaust and a shot of
nitrous.
>> A supercharger is more fun, though.
>
> High 12's, that's it? Are you sure about that time? One of the mags, I
think
>Hot Rod, got a bone stock LS1 to run a 12.9. I imagine some nitrous should
get
>it into at least the low 12's, if not better.
MM&FF got one around 12.9, I think it was a high 12.8 , maybe some one could
post numbrs from the article, I don't have them handy. With a good Vortech
low 11s to high 10s seem possible.
Clint Law
Guy Under The Bridge wrote in message ...
>On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:00:58 GMT, row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>
>>Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
>>there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
>
>And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
Because the ones that show up in other cars, or trucks - aren't even close
to being the same motor. Change the cam, crank, block, firing order,
intake, heads, computer, exhuast on a 351 out of a Cobra R and it will be
pretty much the same as a 351 truck. And the 5.4L DOHC V8 that will be in
the new R is more similar to the 5.4 DOHC in the NAvigator, but it a much
more performance oriented motor, and should be much lighter (although no
good numbers exist as of yet).
>>4600 cubic centimeters!
>
>Very good.
>
>4600 / 1800 = 2.6
>320 / 205 = 1.6
>
>An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
Actually an engine 2.6 times larger produces 1.6 times as much power - and
about 2.5 times as much torque (read: almost identical actual volumetric
efficiency, not that that matters or anything).
>
>The numbers aren't going away.
>
>>You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
>>incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
>
>I'm too tired to gear down to your vocabulary.
>
>>Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
>Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
>Cobra and Civic DX.
Yeah, but it still would be a Civic -and wouldn't be driveable, livable,
reliable, economical, or any other things that the Honda orginally had going
for it. And that is one cheap Civic, only $8K? I thought they were closer
to $15K
sama...@my-dejanews.com
sh...@umich.edu wrote:
>
>
> headbone wrote:
> >
> > hey man, ford has *nothing* to do with themillenia engine or the miller
cycle. I
> > suppose that you think that ford designs the miata and Rx7 engines too?
> >
> > e
>
> While not wholly owned by Ford, Mazda is controlled by Ford, and is
> sufficiently integrated into Ford's global operations that (merely as an
> example) if you went to www.ford.com, you'd see Mazda's name right up
> there with all the other Ford divisions. The CEO of Mazda is a Ford guy.
> Mazda hasn't been integrated in the global vehicle center design
> approach, but to the degree that all Mazda employees are, at this point,
> working for Ford, then I'd say yes, Ford had some involvement with these
> designs.
>
> Besides, even if they weren't designed initially by employees with "Ford
> Motor Company" on their paychecks, they're part of the Ford Motor
> Company engineering stable now, and Ford does get the profits on each
> one sold. You're lucky I didn't include the Volvo V70 R...
>
I must agree ford does have their hand in mazda opperations pretty heavily,
look at almost any front wheel drive mazda, the subframe is exactly the same
as that of the escort. the B2300 is a ranger, and the Mazda Navajo is an
explorer. -- Sam
J. R. Baker
>
> Guy Under The Bridge wrote in message ...
>
> >same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
> weak,
> >huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
> >1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
> >by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
> >like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>
> 1000 lbs? What the hell are you smoking. If you are luck an Integra GS-R
> will weigh 2900 lbs, and a Mustang maybe 3400, that looks like 500 lbs max
The GSR weighs 2660, the Mustang 3425 (for 1999 Cobra -- don't have GT
specs
handy). Diff of 765 lbs. Definitely NOT 1000 !
> difference to me (being very generous on both ends)- about half of your
> fictional numbers. Oh, and you will be very surprised when that Mustang GT
> whips by your Integra in the curves won't you? Look at the real numbers for
> a car before your post and you may look like a super genious, but I doubt
> it.
I realize I'm cheating, but I wonder if the GT could take
a GSR in cornering if the GSR has decent tires. Stock GSR
tires really suck. One thing is certain: I don't want to
hit any mid-corner bumps in the GT with the live axle. The
Cobra (with its IRS) has got me thinking though...
John Baker
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
.................................................................
Greg Husemeier
Jared Rude <jr...@nospamforme.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:XRwW2.4459$ES4.9...@news3.mia...
> Guy Under The Bridge wrote
>
> engine is made in Detroit by Ford. The Honda engines only have a few
> advantages over the Ford engines. One would be the design of the cooling
> passages in the top of the cylinder block to help with cooling of the
> combustion chamber, another would be counter rotating balance shafts (if
> they do have them at all) and the last *might* be VTEC. Frankly, VTEC
isn't
> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
making
> power than variable valve timing.
The VTEC sysem in the Integra and Civic's appear to outperform the "Ztec"
powered Ford Escorts.
Exactly what makes the VTEC system more complex than say, Toyota's VVTi
system or any other
competitors?
> >
> >FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
> > 316hp
> > * 69hp / liter
> >
> >HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
> > 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
> > 205hp
> > * 114hp / liter
>
> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
> important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
> "Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published by
> McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
> chapters in any book.
So, let's see some comparisons then. How DO the Ford motors compare to
Honda
motors in terms of power/unit engine weight or volume?
>
> >As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this is
> >meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
> >greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
> >specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
> >factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
Total
> >power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>
> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
What kind of races? Are you suggesting that the power of a mustang V8
allows it to win
on a race course (with curves) against an Integra Type R or Prelude?
Does handling have anything to
do with it?
HP is the speed at which torque can be delivered. VTEC motors can usually
deliver
their HP more quickly than Ford engines of similar displacement.
>
> >In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a
$21k
> >Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS
it,
> >blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in
a
> >blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
> >replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not up
> to
> >extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the
Si,
> >GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies.
If
> >you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a Cobra.
>
> You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs.
There
> are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
> Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you
will
> belive me, but it's true.
How do you know this to be true? Did your read it from a sales brochure?
Greg
Greg Husemeier
> > Since the average American car owner doesn't understand a thing past
total
> > horsepower and torque, I can understand the blind spot your coming out
of.
> > Yes, the 1.8L (B18 family) would be hard-pressed to 'do the job' in a
> > Taurus, because the Taurus is a big, sloppy, heavy land cruiser, and it
> > needs a large-dosplacment engine. Now this is where it gets
interesting--is
> > the Taurus a big heavy car because it supposed to be or because it HAS
to be
> > to support a big, cheap and inefficient engine?
>
>
> No, seriously, are you kidding?
>
> Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
> inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
> for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in that
> segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
> variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
> big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
>
> Continuing with our apples to apples comparison, let's look at the
> luxury lines. Honda offers an entry level luxury sedan (the Acura TL)
> that uses 3.2L to make 225 hp--that's 70 hp/L. Ford offers an entry
> level luxury sedan (the Lincoln LS) that uses 3.0L to make 210
> hp--whaddya know, without even using a calculator I can see that that is
> also 70 hp/L. Ford also offers entry level luxury sedans that make 80
> hp/L (the Jaguar S-type), and 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
> (ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
> intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
> Miller cycle.
The Lincoln LS engine looks excellent. Were the Millenia and Jag engines
designed by Ford?
Also, the Millenia motor (Miller cycle) is not normally aspirated. It isn't
fair to compare
HP/L of normally aspirated cars to those with forced induction.
>
> The correct inference to draw from this is that, while 100 hp/L is
> possible at larger engine displacements (look at the S52 BMW 3.2 L,
> which makes 321 hp), it is both hideously expensive and totally
> unecessary, even in the eyes of the technology mavens at Honda.
Yet the same nearly stock 3.2L (BMW) engine in the M3 chassis, with its
linear powerband has
been winning many supertouring races against the likes of Porsche, etc.
>
> Even Honda's little engines that you're so proud of are essentially
> marketing tools rather than performance products. If, for some reason,
> you want/need to get 200 hp out of a 1.8L four, it's far better to
> simply turbocharge it.
Obviously Honda has experience with turbocharging as they've been using
this technology in their F1 engines. For whatever reason they've decided to
go
with VVT like Toyota and BMW have in prod cars. Are you suggesting that
BMW, Honda and
Toyota don't know what they're doing?
> Modern turbos have few of the emissions and
> durability problems of the early versions, and they're likely cheaper to
> engineer and build than the titanium connecting rod bedecked B18C.
> Moreover, and this is the really critical point, a well-designed turbo
> powerplant gives you a far broader, more usable power band than is found
> in the peaky little Hondas, and affords a lot more torque down low, in
> addition to the power up high. Honda, though, found it was easy to
> capitalize on their admitted racing success by coming up with a unique
> concept (peaky high-hp engines) brought about by a technology with a
> cool acronym (VTEC). I have to say, it's worked admirably. A whole
> generation of people have grown up thinking that because their 125 hp
> Civic has VTEC, it is somehow a fast, powerful car.
Then why is the Integra GSR significantly faster than the Escort with the
ZTEC motor?
Why doesn't Ford turbocharge their cars? What about the drawbacks of
turbocharging
(increased heat, more moving parts, more oil wear, spooldown problems when
shutting
off the motor at high rpm's, etc.)?
>
> > The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For
the
> > same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
weak,
> > huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang
wieghs
> > 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets
eaten
> > by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of
handling
> > like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>
> I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
> The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
> power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
> half faster to 60?
Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
Integra
Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
is a better
test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo). Do you
think the Integra's
lighter engine weight and superior suspension design have anything to do
with its
overall performance (not just straight line)?
Greg
ASmall9494
>
> Go suck a bloody tampon. And while your at it, realize that Honda will be
> sucking the other end. If its specific output you care about than Mazda
is the
> king. They made 255 hp from a 1.3L rotary. That's 196 hp per liter.
Also
> realize that Ford owns a large portion of Mazda. So I'll go out on a limb
and
> say Ford whoops Honda's ass in specific output.
>
> Enjoy your breakfast, troll boy.
Anthony, '97 Slowbra #301
http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/
<a href="http://members.aol.com/asmall9494/index.html">The Cobra Lair</a>
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." ~ Niel Peart
94GT
guy_under_...@yahoo.com says...
>> Just my two cents.... this is a silly thread. My dad has a Honda Accord.
>I have a
>> Ford Contour SVT. My dad tried to get me to buy a Honda for all the
>reasons the Guy
>> Under the Bridge mentions. BUT... my 6 cyl. SVT slams his 4 cyl. Accord
>into the
>> ground. And my dad admits it. Even though the engine in the Accord
>mathematically
>> "puts out" more hp per litre and more torque in the higher rpm's. Again,
>just my
>> two cents.....
>Your Dad's Accord engine was designed and tuned specifically for that
>vehicle. Honda puts a different engine in every car they make--they do this
>because Honda's car-building philosophy stresses high refinment. That Accord
>is not meant for performance, it's meant for reliable economy
Hmm... most of the rice boys around here don't think so. Maybe Honda should
point that out in the brochure - "This car is not a performance car." That
might end some of the foolishness I see around town.
>--
>
>Guy Under The Bridge
>Super Genius!
"super genius" is debatable.
--
Pony on!
-Jonathan
1994 5.0 Mustang Convertible, Triple Black
www.unf.edu/~jmaton/mustang
jma...@unf.edu
94GT
>
>> The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For the
>> same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds weak,
>> huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
>> 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
>> by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
>> like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>At least I can fit in a Mustang. To ride in an Inegra I need a hack saw to cut
a
>hole in the roof.
They come with that option, it's called a "sun roof". :)
Actually, the reason you can't fit is that you're probably not a 90 lb teenage
boy. That's who the car is designed for.
>Ed
94GT
guy_under_...@yahoo.com says...
>> So, production Honda engines are designed for racing? Please, get real.
>
>meant for cargo hauling, it's engine will reflect that utility (99 Odyssey
>3.5L v6 220lbs-ft). If it's meant for racing, it will be tuned for that (98
>Integra Type-R 1.8L 4-cyl 205hp). Ford does not make a production engine for
>racing.
Excuse me? The Cobra's engine isn't a race engine?
>And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
>handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
>dollar you have to spend on just making the boat handle good is a dollar
>spent on making the Type-R even faster. I was talking stock anyway. Opening
>up the aftermakret can of worms is a fight Ford can't win. Don't go there.
Every post until now you've stated "excluding the NSX"... now you bring it into
the discussion? Because you're losing ground on your 'argument'? And you mix
up the cars in this paragraph. You mention that one has to spend a lot of
money to get a Mustang to handle like an NSX. Then you say that every dollar
spent making the Mustang handle "good" (by the way, "well" is grammatically
correct) is a dollar spent on making the Type-R even faster. You were talking
about the NSX! The Mustang already outhandles the Civic Type R, Integra Type
R, Prelude Type R, and whatever other Hondas also come in a Type Retard
configuration. So... this argument was pointless.
And Ford can't win the aftermarket battle? Again, I don't know "where you get
your delusions from," to quote Star Wars. Look at two things here:
(1) sheer number of aftermarket parts and companies for Fords and for Hondas.
Win -> Ford, (hell, the Mustang alone)
(2) price of aftermarket parts
Win -> Ford. Parts and installation on foreign cars has always been more
expensive. Are you really going to dispute that?
You may as well, you dispute other basic facts.
94GT
guy_under_...@yahoo.com says...
>>4600 cubic centimeters!
>
>Very good.
>
>4600 / 1800 = 2.6
>320 / 205 = 1.6
>
>An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
Didn't we already debunk specific power for you? Or did you read those
responses yet?
>The numbers aren't going away.
Hopefully you will, though.
>
>>Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
>Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
>Cobra and Civic DX.
Will you STOP mixing up cars?!!! Dammit you are a pest. You've been talking
about a Mustang (GT, I imagine) and now you switch to a Cobra. Problem is, if
you're now talking about a Cobra, you just threw your argument about handling
out the window. You don't need to make any upgrades to a Cobra to outhandle
any Honda automobile. Or are you going to bring in the NSX again, since you
just lost this argument as well? If you bring in the exclusive NSX, please
have the intelligence to also consider the Cobra R. Whoops, you just lost
again.
Clint Law
Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkl3f$8...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
>
>Jared Rude <jr...@nospamforme.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>news:XRwW2.4459$ES4.9...@news3.mia...
>> Guy Under The Bridge wrote
>>
>> The SHO engine only comes in the Taurus'es. It's made by Yamaha. The
Cobra
>> engine is made in Detroit by Ford. The Honda engines only have a few
>> advantages over the Ford engines. One would be the design of the cooling
>> passages in the top of the cylinder block to help with cooling of the
>> combustion chamber, another would be counter rotating balance shafts (if
>> they do have them at all) and the last *might* be VTEC. Frankly, VTEC
>isn't
>> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
>making
>> power than variable valve timing.
>
>The VTEC sysem in the Integra and Civic's appear to outperform the "Ztec"
>powered Ford Escorts.
>Exactly what makes the VTEC system more complex than say, Toyota's VVTi
>system or any other
>competitors?
The fact that it uses a completely seperate cam, for one. All other
variable timing systems I'm aware of just move the existing cam, not switch
over to another one with different profiles.
>> >
>> >FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
>> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
>> > 316hp
>> > * 69hp / liter
>> >
>> >HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
>> > 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
>> > 205hp
>> > * 114hp / liter
>>
>> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
>> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
>> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
>> displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
>> important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
>> "Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published
by
>> McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
>> chapters in any book.
>
>So, let's see some comparisons then. How DO the Ford motors compare to
>Honda
>motors in terms of power/unit engine weight or volume?
I'll put it this way, a iron block, iron heads Ford 5.0 wieghs less than 500
lbs (about 450 to be exact). A DOHC aluminum block and heads 4.6 will be
heavier (as will a SOHC 4.6 with Iron blocka nd alluminum heads), but still
around 500 lbs.
>>
>> >As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this
is
>> >meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
>> >greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70%
more
>> >specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
>> >factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
>Total
>> >power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>>
>> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
>
>What kind of races? Are you suggesting that the power of a mustang V8
>allows it to win
>on a race course (with curves) against an Integra Type R or Prelude?
> Does handling have anything to
>do with it?
Handling has lots to do with running a race course. Power also has a lot to
do with it (unless your in a parking lot autocross - than it doesn't play a
great role). The Mustang also has a better F/R weight ratio over the
Prelude and Integra, brakes better (if you use the correct comparisons, Type
R to Cobra (or Cobra R, if you want to be picky), Prelude to GT (even though
the Prelude is more expensive...), handles equally or better.
No. HP is a function of RPM and torque. HP varies widely with RPM (and
torque), and Honda motors as a rule deliver their peak HP far later than
that of a Ford motor of similar output (or displacement). They do this
because they have less volumtric efficiency (which is what creates torque),
but are able to carry that to a higher RPM.
Note: All production VTEC 4 cyls peak HP are *at* the redline, whereas most
Ford (and almost all other motors in production today, for that matter)
deliver the peak HP 2000-2500 RPM below redline.
>
>>
>> >In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a
>$21k
>> >Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS
>it,
>> >blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in
>a
>> >blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
>> >replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not
up
>> to
>> >extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the
>Si,
>> >GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies.
>If
>> >you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a
Cobra.
>>
>> You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs.
>There
>> are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
>> Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you
>will
>> belive me, but it's true.
>
>How do you know this to be true? Did your read it from a sales brochure?
Wathc a SCCA race sometime - you will see Mustangs beat pretty much any car
out there (and in lightly modded form in the lower classes). Not that many
NSX's run in SCCA competition (maybe becuase they aren't cost effective
enough?), but get there but spanked by Mustangs - for about half the money.
Clint Law
Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkmms$d...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
>
>Josh Turner <sh...@umich.edu> wrote in message
>news:372BC892...@umich.edu...
>> > Since the average American car owner doesn't understand a thing past
>total
>> > horsepower and torque, I can understand the blind spot your coming out
>of.
>> > Yes, the 1.8L (B18 family) would be hard-pressed to 'do the job' in a
>> > Taurus, because the Taurus is a big, sloppy, heavy land cruiser, and it
>> > needs a large-dosplacment engine. Now this is where it gets
>interesting--is
>> > the Taurus a big heavy car because it supposed to be or because it HAS
>to be
>> > to support a big, cheap and inefficient engine?
>>
>> Are you kidding?
>>
>> No, seriously, are you kidding?
>>
>> Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
>> inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
>> for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in that
>> segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
>> variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
>> big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
>
>The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
>http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
As you might know (but probably don't) Ford makes several 3.0L V6s - one
makes 145 HP (I believe it a SOHC setup now, it is very similar to the old
pushrod 3.0 V6 that's been around forever) - but the other, the DOHC Duratec
V6 makes 200HP.
>The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
Your point?
>>
>> Continuing with our apples to apples comparison, let's look at the
>> luxury lines. Honda offers an entry level luxury sedan (the Acura TL)
>> that uses 3.2L to make 225 hp--that's 70 hp/L. Ford offers an entry
>> level luxury sedan (the Lincoln LS) that uses 3.0L to make 210
>> hp--whaddya know, without even using a calculator I can see that that is
>> also 70 hp/L. Ford also offers entry level luxury sedans that make 80
>> hp/L (the Jaguar S-type), and 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
>> (ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
>> intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
>> Miller cycle.
>
>The Lincoln LS engine looks excellent. Were the Millenia and Jag engines
>designed by Ford?
>Also, the Millenia motor (Miller cycle) is not normally aspirated. It
isn't
>fair to compare
>HP/L of normally aspirated cars to those with forced induction.
Ford owns Jaguar, and has control over Mazda. While I would not say that
the Jaguar V8 or the miller cycle V6 were designed by Ford, both (especially
the Jag V8) have considerable influence from Ford.
Ford does turbocharge cars. Only in Europe today. As a matter of fact, by
any account the turbocharged Cosworth 4 cyl available in Britian is one of
the finest 4 cyl motors made, it just isn't available here. And that GSR
also costs about $8K more than a Escort.
>>
>> > The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For
>the
>> > same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
>weak,
>> > huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang
>wieghs
>> > 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets
>eaten
>> > by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of
>handling
>> > like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>>
>> I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
>> The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
>> power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
>> half faster to 60?
>
>Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
>Integra
>Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
>is a better
>test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo). Do you
>think the Integra's
>lighter engine weight and superior suspension design have anything to do
>with its
>overall performance (not just straight line)?
Sure. That's why it looses in road courses too. A Mustang Cobra, Cobra R,
and GT outhandle, outbrake, and all around outperform any competitor Honda
has to offer in their specific market segment.
Clint Law
J. R. Baker wrote in message <372DCC62...@ccgate.hac.com>...
>Clint Law wrote:
>>
>> Guy Under The Bridge wrote in message ...
>>
the
>> >same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
>> weak,
>> >huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang
wieghs
>> >1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets
eaten
>> >by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of
handling
>> >like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>>
>> 1000 lbs? What the hell are you smoking. If you are luck an Integra
GS-R
>> will weigh 2900 lbs, and a Mustang maybe 3400, that looks like 500 lbs
max
>
>specs
>handy). Diff of 765 lbs. Definitely NOT 1000 !
The cobra wieghs about 80 lbs more than a GT. That leaves, what 680 lbs
difference. And are you sure the weight you listed was for the GSR? I
thought it was around 2800 lbs.
>> difference to me (being very generous on both ends)- about half of your
>> fictional numbers. Oh, and you will be very surprised when that Mustang
GT
>> whips by your Integra in the curves won't you? Look at the real numbers
for
>> a car before your post and you may look like a super genious, but I doubt
>> it.
>
>I realize I'm cheating, but I wonder if the GT could take
>a GSR in cornering if the GSR has decent tires. Stock GSR
>tires really suck. One thing is certain: I don't want to
>hit any mid-corner bumps in the GT with the live axle. The
>Cobra (with its IRS) has got me thinking though...
The new GT live axle handles bumps way better than the pre-99 ones, which
weren't all that bad. It is a scary feeling at first (Going over a bumpy
road at hgih speed), but you get used to it and learn to realize that your
entire car is not going to jerk out and go around on you -it just feels like
it sometimes. I can drive down roads fast now that when I first got my GT
scarred the living crap out of me - you get used to the feelings and the
limits. The sword cuts both ways too, I know I wouldn't like to be heading
straight toward the outside of a curve and know there is no way that I can
keep a Integra (not so Much a Prelude with ATTS, but they are quite
expensive, not to much cheaper than a Cobra with IRS (about $3K, not too bad
anyway)) from understeering. Whereas in a RWD with some power and a better
weight balance a good right foot can almost always keep a car pointed
towards the center of a turn.
sama...@my-dejanews.com
I remember when i was really into bugs, I would read all of the articles on
turbo's tuning the carbs, exhausts, whatever, but after about 2 years it was
the same stuff as it was 2 years ago. If you are just getting into it, it can
be tough to find the articles you are looking for, but after a while, they
reprint the same stuff over again, every once in a while there is new
technologies and stuff like that, but there is only so much that can be done
to the engines and after a while they run out, so it gives them more life if
they put in different articles than just which exhaust to buy, how to
properly lower your car, etc. -- Sam
sama...@my-dejanews.com
row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 16:19:55 GMT, "Guy Under The Bridge"
> <guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >No, Honda builds a different engine for every car they make. If the car is
> >meant for cargo hauling, it's engine will reflect that utility (99 Odyssey
> >3.5L v6 220lbs-ft). If it's meant for racing, it will be tuned for that (98
> >Integra Type-R 1.8L 4-cyl 205hp). Ford does not make a production engine for
> >racing.
>
> Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC
how many ccs is that?
>
> >> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> >> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> >> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> >> displacement) then it would be different.
> >
> >I know the B18C 98 spec-R is around 1800cc. What's the 4.6L DOHC?
>
> HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>
> You are a self-proclaimed genius, and you can't convert liters to
> cubic centimeters?
that wasn't even what the other guy told him to do anyway, he said "engine
volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal displacemet)" the guy is
stupid none-the-less. it is people like the one that you have just replied to
that give us honda and acura drivers a bad name...
>
> LET'S SEE.
>
> <snipped 2nd grade Math lesson>
>
>
> >> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
> >
> >I was covering a broader range of fundimental engineering compromises a
> >larger displacment engine force on car design. The smaller the engine the
> >less restricted the design of a car. This is why the Mustang and Integra,
> >although being basically the same size, have such a huge diference in
> >wieght, suspension, etc.
>
> You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
> incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
but you see the coefficient of the radius of the sun as it is related to the
moon is proportionate to the size of the monkies ass when opened with a shoe
horn. also when compairing the m&m to a phone number it is imperitive that you
use the felt tipped pen. what's a henway?
>
> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
> >handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for every
>
> Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
what, you didn't know? your ass better call somebody!! hehehe
seriously, with a bit more money, I could put on a mustang II front susp.
(added support for the engine) drop in a 454, convert the drivetrain to fr,
slap a blower on it, and shit yeah, I'll be running faster.
sama...@my-dejanews.com
row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
> On Sun, 02 May 1999 00:45:37 GMT, "Guy Under The Bridge"
> <guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:00:58 GMT, row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
> >
> >>Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
> >>there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
> >
> >And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
>
> No. Not sharing the same internal components, intakes, heads, etc.
> An 'engine' is more than just a block.
actually, the basic 5.4 l block is in the trucks and expeditions, but the
engine itself contains no similarities other than the engine size. that is
like the 1.8 l for the type R though, it shares the same engine size as the
GSR, but guess what nothing is the same between the 2 engines beyond that.
>
> >>4600 cubic centimeters!
> >
> >Very good.
>
> Well, you asked..
>
> >4600 / 1800 = 2.6
> >320 / 205 = 1.6
> >
> >An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
>
> Fantastic, and it still loses. Bummer, eh?
>
> >The numbers aren't going away.
>
> Actually, they are. Into my rearview mirror, fading into the
> distance..
>
> >>You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
> >>incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
> >
> >I'm too tired to gear down to your vocabulary.
>
> "I am a troll."
>
> >Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
> >
> >Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
> >Cobra and Civic DX
>
> Ah, my favorite, time-worn argument. "I could buy car X for Xx
> dollars, or I could buy car Y for (Xx+Yy)
isn't this the chromosone that determines whether you are a boy or a girl?
dollars, or I could just put
> in an extra Yy dollars into the car that costs Xx and it will be just
> as good or better!"
do you get the new car waranty with that? hehehe
>
> The problem with that is that if you have the $20,000 lying around to
> modify your car, you're not going to buy a Civic DX unless you're part
> of a race team or are selling parts and need a demo car. Individuals
> don't do that. Individuals with $20k cash lying around to dump on
> modifying a car buy a hell of a lot nicer car than a Civic OR a Cobra
> to start with. Your argument is a fatally flawed one, especially with
> the number you quote. If the # were say $5,000, it would be a lot
> more feasible.
it is all stupid semantics anyway, it is people like rice-boy under the
bridge that give honda/acura owners (that like to modify their cars) bad
names, live with it, some people get cars that are faster out of the box than
others, if you put $500 into it to make it faster than their stock car, why
can't they dump $500 into theirs also? I just don't understand, I bought my
acura for a reason and it sure as hell wasn't to beat any other cars, it was
to have power, but not so much I have to start in second gear, mileage, and
style. If someone bought a civic with the express purpose of dropping $20000
into it to beat a mustang, it is ludicrice, you might as well have it
converted with a nice V8 and changed to a RWD. -- Sam
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> In last years F1 series Honda engines dominated the series,
> while also causing the most DNFs.
The only Honda engines in F1 were badged as Mugen engines
and they did NOT dominate the series.
Are you sure you aren't thinking of CART?
> Why? Particularly when they
> had a 20% greater chance of breaking down? The answer was they
> weighed 50lb less than the next best engine. The Honda engine
> weighed 90lbs less than Ford's engine, which just happen to be
> the third most winning engine in the series, and had higher
> reliability. The Honda powered teams took a risk of the Honda
> engine and overall it paid off for them.
I am not even sure if you are talking about CART, since the
dominant Honda engines in CART are not only light and powerful,
but pretty reliable.
> This year F1 will be interesting because Ford's new engine
> is 75lb lighter than last year, with a 10% increase in power.
Ford's new F1 engine is, indeed lighter and more powerful than
the previous one.
> I do not have any information on this years engine from Honda.
> But I have read that several of last years top teams have
> pulled their Honda engines in favor of the new Ford engine.
No F1 teams have pulled their Honda engines in favor of
Ford engines.
Again, are you sure you aren't thinking about CART?
--
Mike Kohlbrenner
<kohlbren (-a t-) an dot hp dot com> sorry!
cr...@home.com
<jrb...@ccgate.hac.com> wrote:
>The GSR weighs 2660, the Mustang 3425 (for 1999 Cobra -- don't have GT
>specs
>handy). Diff of 765 lbs. Definitely NOT 1000 !
Don't matter.
The Cobra swallows the GS-R whole.
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> ... Frankly, VTEC isn't as great as everyone claims it to
> be. There are less complex ways of making power than
> variable valve timing.
Like what? Just curious what you are referring to.
Off the top of my head, I can think of:
more displacement
forced induction
Anything else?
And BTW, both of the above run contrary to Honda's design
philosophy.
> ... There are very few similarities between the production Honda engines and the
> Indy based Honda engine. They may say that they are the same, but really all
> they *might* share is bore centerline spacing.
_HONDA_ never claims that the Indy engines are production
based. It is the misguided Honda nuts that jump to those
conclusions.
Pity, really. The more rational Honda folks are actually
a lot more like the the more rational Ford folks, they
just have different needs/taste in cars...
> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
> important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
> "Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published by
> McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
> chapters in any book.
True. But don't forget that Honda's high HP/l engines
_ARE_ very small and very light weight for the power
they put out.
> You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs. There
> are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
> Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you will
> belive me, but it's true.
Careful there... Looking at the Saleen Mustangs duke it
out with the NSX in the SCCA World Challenge races it is
easy to see that the NSX has a clear handling and braking
advantage and won many battles with the Saleens, in spite
of the obvious power advantage the Saleens had.
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
> inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...
Actually, the Accord V6 is an SOHC engine.
Not bad, eh? With only one cam, it is significantly
smaller and lighter than a DOHC design would have been.
> All of the other cars in that
> segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
> variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
> big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
Honda put a V6 into the Accord because the American market
demanded it. They were the last to use a V6 in this class.
They still sell a TON of Accords with 2.3l I4s...
> ... 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
> (ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
> intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
> Miller cycle.
That's Mazda technology, regardless of the fact that Ford
bought them. And it also has a supercharger on it.
Mike Kohlbrenner
> ...
> So, other than marketing, WTF is the point of building a 240 hp aspo
> 2.0L for the street? Why build an engine that you have to wind out to 8K
> to get any power out of, when you could build (for example) a DOHC, 2.X
> or 3.X liter I or V6 that would likely be dimensionally similar,
No way...
> weigh about the same,
No way...
> get relatively similar fuel economy, and be *far* more
> tractible?
These two points are possible, perhaps even probable...
I am sorry, but I doubt that there is a normally aspirated
piston engine on the market today producing ~240 HP that
is as compact and lightweight as the S2000 engine will be.
Now, of course, I am not saying that high HP/l engines
are the way to go in street cars -- I am merely stating
the physical facts that Honda's high HP/l engines are
also among the highest in the HP/lb measure and the
HP/size measure, both of which are valid goals in the
right circumstances.
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkl3f$8...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
> >
> >Jared Rude <jr...@nospamforme.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >
> >> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
> >>making power than variable valve timing.
> >
> >The VTEC sysem in the Integra and Civic's appear to outperform the "Ztec"
> >powered Ford Escorts.
> >Exactly what makes the VTEC system more complex than say, Toyota's VVTi
> >system or any other
> >competitors?
>
> The fact that it uses a completely seperate cam, for one.
There isn't a separate cam. VTEC uses separate lobes on
the same cam.
> All other variable timing systems I'm aware of just move
> the existing cam, not switch over to another one with
> different profiles.
VTEC is actually one of the simplest of implementations of
VVT, and adds different cam profiles to the mix.
VTEC works well with Honda's approach to engines, and is
fairly simple and reliable.
With that said, however, I will not claim that it is superior
or inferior to other approaches as measured by the output
numbers...
...
> I'll put it this way, a iron block, iron heads Ford 5.0 wieghs less than 500
> lbs (about 450 to be exact). A DOHC aluminum block and heads 4.6 will be
> heavier (as will a SOHC 4.6 with Iron blocka nd alluminum heads), but still
> around 500 lbs.
The 240 HP engine in the upcoming S2000 will weigh _MUCH_
less than that.
...
> Watch a SCCA race sometime - you will see Mustangs beat pretty much any car
> out there (and in lightly modded form in the lower classes). Not that many
> NSX's run in SCCA competition (maybe becuase they aren't cost effective
> enough?), but get there but spanked by Mustangs - for about half the money.
The only place the NSX runs in SCCA is in the World Challenge.
It gives Saleen Mustangs a run for their money even after
being penalized with more weight. The Saleens have more
power, the NSX handles and brakes better. The NSX took the
championship...
Clint Law
sama...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<7gl55s$njc$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
>
> row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>> On Sat, 01 May 1999 16:19:55 GMT, "Guy Under The Bridge"
>> <guy_under_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >No, Honda builds a different engine for every car they make. If the car
is
>> >meant for cargo hauling, it's engine will reflect that utility (99
Odyssey
>> >3.5L v6 220lbs-ft). If it's meant for racing, it will be tuned for that
(98
>> >Integra Type-R 1.8L 4-cyl 205hp). Ford does not make a production engine
for
>> >racing.
>>
>
I don't know the exact number, around 54000 ( yes I know 1 liter = 1000
cc'sThey round off the liters )
Actually the only 5.4L DOHC made now is only a truck engine (in the
navigator) - I'll bet the Cobra R will get an all alluminum version of it
(the one in the navigator has to weigh a ton). The 4.6 DOHC made right now
is a very good example of a race engine.
>
>>
>> >> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
>> >> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
>> >> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
>> >> displacement) then it would be different.
>> >
>> >I know the B18C 98 spec-R is around 1800cc. What's the 4.6L DOHC?
>>
>> HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
>>
>> You are a self-proclaimed genius, and you can't convert liters to
>> cubic centimeters?
>
>that wasn't even what the other guy told him to do anyway, he said "engine
>volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal displacemet)" the guy is
>stupid none-the-less. it is people like the one that you have just replied
to
>that give us honda and acura drivers a bad name...
True, I've read several posts of his. No one can say the VTEC 4's are
compact, not for any size motor really, especially not for a I4.
>> LET'S SEE.
>>
>> <snipped 2nd grade Math lesson>
>>
>>
>> >> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
>> >
>> >I was covering a broader range of fundimental engineering compromises a
>> >larger displacment engine force on car design. The smaller the engine
the
>> >less restricted the design of a car. This is why the Mustang and
Integra,
>> >although being basically the same size, have such a huge diference in
>> >wieght, suspension, etc.
>>
>> You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
>> incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
>
>but you see the coefficient of the radius of the sun as it is related to
the
>moon is proportionate to the size of the monkies ass when opened with a
shoe
>horn. also when compairing the m&m to a phone number it is imperitive that
you
>use the felt tipped pen. what's a henway?
>>
>> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
>> >handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for
every
>>
>> Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
>what, you didn't know? your ass better call somebody!! hehehe
>seriously, with a bit more money, I could put on a mustang II front susp.
>(added support for the engine) drop in a 454, convert the drivetrain to fr,
>slap a blower on it, and shit yeah, I'll be running faster.
Heck with the 454, Ford sells a 514 cubic inch, carbed, pushrod motor that
right out of the box makes 600 HP (and runs like 7K RPM). Put on a blower,
figure 800-1000 HP, a good tranny (I' seriously doubt there is a FWD tranny
that can handle all the torque, not to many RWD ones) and it'll be a lot
faster. Toal investment? Maybe $20K, including good supension and chassis
mods to be able to hook up well. Driveable as a Mustang (or other RWD
sports car) with the same amount of capability? I think not....
Basically you just destroyed the one thing the Civic does well and the one
reason people should buy it.
Clint Law
Mike Kohlbrenner wrote in message <372E1FF9...@My.Mailbox>...
>Clint Law wrote:
>>
>> Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkl3f$8...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
>> >
>> >Jared Rude <jr...@nospamforme.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> >
>> >> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
>> >>making power than variable valve timing.
>> >
>> >The VTEC sysem in the Integra and Civic's appear to outperform the
"Ztec"
>> >powered Ford Escorts.
>> >Exactly what makes the VTEC system more complex than say, Toyota's VVTi
>> >system or any other
>> >competitors?
>>
>> The fact that it uses a completely seperate cam, for one.
>
>the same cam.
My mistake - I thought it did, and stand corrected.
>> All other variable timing systems I'm aware of just move
>> the existing cam, not switch over to another one with
>> different profiles.
>
>VTEC is actually one of the simplest of implementations of
>VVT, and adds different cam profiles to the mix.
>
>VTEC works well with Honda's approach to engines, and is
>fairly simple and reliable.
>
>With that said, however, I will not claim that it is superior
>or inferior to other approaches as measured by the output
>numbers...
I don't think so either. You are still stuck with one cam profile or
another, and most VVT systems (Jaguars system on it's 4.0L V8, for example)
is more or less infinately adjustable to provide great ranges in valve
overlap and timing (not lift however...), making it much more suitable for,
lets say a large powerful V8, allowing lots of overlap for nice city driving
at relaxed RPMs, but as soon as you hit the pedal it decreases overlap and
bam - full power - without the wait of the VTEC system. Of course, the cars
are in different price ranges too.
>...
>> I'll put it this way, a iron block, iron heads Ford 5.0 wieghs less than
500
>> lbs (about 450 to be exact). A DOHC aluminum block and heads 4.6 will be
>> heavier (as will a SOHC 4.6 with Iron blocka nd alluminum heads), but
still
>> around 500 lbs.
>
>The 240 HP engine in the upcoming S2000 will weigh _MUCH_
>less than that.
How much less? I'm guessing 300-350 lbs total weight for the S2000s motor
myself -which isn't a *huge* difference, especially considering it's about
half the displacement and makes about 80 fewer HP.
Lee Cao
Jared Rude wrote:
> This whole first paragraph is a joke. You don't really believe it do you?
> Ford and Honda both have the same goals. Sell as many cars as possible, and
> make as much money, every year, as they possibly can. The "mass market" and
> "refinement" statements are BS. Maybe Honda spends more money on injection
> molding tooling so the interiors come out looking nicer, but that's not
> "refinement." That's a difference in marketing philosophy.
I would actually call that refinement. Cuz making crappy molded
parts is bad marketing philosophy no matter who does it.
> If you don't
> think Honda is in the car business to make money through mass production,
> then you're an idiot.
I agree with the rest of the stuff you said. =)
> Frankly, VTEC isn't
> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of making
> power than variable valve timing.
Yea there are less complex ways... but I think that VTEC offers a
good balance of power, economy and reliability.
>
> >Let's examine the difference between small and advanced vs. large and
> >simple. The trend in racing is to maxamize specific power output--or power
> >efficiency. Race engines try and maxamize output while minimizing size and
> >wieght, and this is what Honda tries to do. As a company, Honda expends a
> >great deal of effort to optimize their engines to greater and greater
> >specific power output. This is why Honda engines have, over the years,
> >remained the same size but steadily increased in power. Ford isn't
> intrested
> >in building race cars, and is primarily concerned with being on top of the
> >marketplace--this is good for Ford but bad for racing. This, however, does
> >not mean Ford builds poor engines, only that those engines are optomized
> for
> >marketing and sales, not performance.
>
> So, production Honda engines are designed for racing? Please, get real.
> There are very few similarities between the production Honda engines and the
> Indy based Honda engine. They may say that they are the same, but really all
> they *might* share is bore centerline spacing. The blocks aren't the same.
> The heads aren't the same. The rotating assemblies aren't the same. Nothing
> is the same. This also goes for the Cobra engine as compared to the Cosworth
> engines. Nothing is the same between them. Except the names on the valve
> covers.
>
> >Let's take a direct comparison between Ford's and Honda's best engines
> >(excluding NSX):
> >
> >FORD SVT 4.6L SHO
> > 4.6L v8 DOHC
> > 316hp
> > * 69hp / liter
> >
> >HONDA B18C 98 SPEC-R
> > 1.8L 4-cyl inline DOHC VTEC
> > 205hp
> > * 114hp / liter
>
> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> displacement) then it would be different. Those kinds of measurements are
> important. If you don't believe me, go read chapters one and two of
> "Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published by
> McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
> chapters in any book.
It's hard to believe how power/unit engine volume is important in
a production car... Besides, I am sure that a V8 will have a higher
power per unit volume since a V8 is more compact than two separate
I4s...
>
> >As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this is
> >meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
> >greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70% more
> >specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
> >factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice. Total
> >power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
>
> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
Hmmmm
HP = rate of power delivery. I would think that the more hp/liter
that you have, the better off you are...
> OK, with the above paragraph you have proven you know nothing about power or
> what it does in the physical world. Torque accelerates a car. Power, in the
> real world, boils down to be the rate of change of acceleration. Torque is
> not "accelerating power." Torque is rotational force, which is converted to
> linear force by the drivetrain, which accelerates the car. Power is the
> acceleration which the torque can maintain within the vehicle's speed range.
Yea... and comparing crank torque is meaningless since torque at the
wheel is what matters, and that is affected by the gearing ratio as
well as wheel size.
> You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs. There
> are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
> Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you will
> belive me, but it's true.
LOL, I'll believe it when I see it. Does the said suspension
upgrades mostly involve HUGE tires? Besides, comparing a modified
car to a stock car is as rediculous as comparing a $25,000 car to
a $85,000 car.
>
> >Guy Under The Bridge
> >Super Genius!
>
> More like mental midget. Don't bother posting stuff you know nothing about.
>
> --
> Jared Rude
> 1990 LX 5.0
> Lots faster than Marc Fencil's Camaro
> remove "nospamforme" to reply
Lee Cao
Lee Cao
> >Your Dad's Accord engine was designed and tuned specifically for that
> >vehicle. Honda puts a different engine in every car they make--they do this
> >because Honda's car-building philosophy stresses high refinment. That Accord
> >is not meant for performance, it's meant for reliable economy
>
> Hmm... most of the rice boys around here don't think so. Maybe Honda should
> point that out in the brochure - "This car is not a performance car." That
> might end some of the foolishness I see around town.
Yea, as soon as Ford starts putting "This car is not a reliable car." in
their Mustang brochure.
LOL Like it or not, my V6 Accord Automatic whips a V6 Mustang
Automatic's ass, by almost a second to 60mph, with less displacement
and more weight. Handles better too. Explain that one to me. If
Honda started putting "This car is not a performance car" in their
Accord brochure, what exactly should Ford print as the caption under
their V6 Mustang pictures? "This car is slower than a 4 door family
sedan"?
I am still waiting on reliable published sources for the 5
speed manual numbers.
>
> >--
> >
> >Guy Under The Bridge
> >Super Genius!
>
> "super genius" is debatable.
>
> --
> Pony on!
> -Jonathan
> 1994 5.0 Mustang Convertible, Triple Black
> www.unf.edu/~jmaton/mustang
> jma...@unf.edu
Lee Cao
Brian Kaul
Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
> On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:00:58 GMT, row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe) wrote:
>
> >Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
> >there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
>
> And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
Not the DOHC. There is a 5.4 SOHC in Ford trucks.
> >4600 cubic centimeters!
>
> Very good.
>
> 4600 / 1800 = 2.6
> 320 / 205 = 1.6
>
> An engine 2.6 times smaller produces 1.6 times more specific power.
>
> The numbers aren't going away.
And that matters how? Horsepower to weight ratio actually makes a difference.
Specific HP is meaningless...
> >You are opening your mouth and there is noise coming out, but it is
> >incoherent noise. You may be related to Lloyd Parker.
>
> I'm too tired to gear down to your vocabulary.
>
> >Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
>
> Well, no. It would probaly take $20k...about the price difference between a
> Cobra and Civic DX.
--
Brian Kaul
mike
> In last years F1 series Honda engines dominated the series,
> while also causing the most DNFs. Why? Particularly when they
> had a 20% greater chance of breaking down? The answer was they
> weighed 50lb less than the next best engine. The Honda engine
> weighed 90lbs less than Ford's engine, which just happen to be
> the third most winning engine in the series, and had higher
> reliability. The Honda powered teams took a risk of the Honda
> engine and overall it paid off for them.
Honda have not been in F1 since 1992. where did you get the figures from?
> This year F1 will be interesting because Ford's new engine
> is 75lb lighter than last year, with a 10% increase in power.
> I do not have any information on this years engine from Honda.
> But I have read that several of last years top teams have
> pulled their Honda engines in favor of the new Ford engine.
Honda don't have a works engine in F1 at this stage. No teams have pulled
their Honda engines in favour of the new Ford engine, for similar reasons.
If you are talking about the Mugen engine, it was only ever offerred to
Jordan, and they've never dominated the F1 series. Meanwhile, Prost
inherited Jordan's ex-engine supplier, Peugot, who aren't doing to great
at the moment.
By the way, Honda is coming in F1 next year. They will be powering the
Jordans and now the new BAR team (BAR have ditched their Renault based
Meccachrome engine). It is unclear yet whether Honda will enter their own
team in 2000 or 2001. it's going to be hard for them and i don't expect
much from them for atleast 1 season, despite the encouraging testing
results. It will be even harder with BMW powering Williams next year, the
ever powerful Mercedes engine at McClaren and the possiblility of Audi and
Toyota entering.
mike
Lee Cao
> This is to "The Guy Under A Bridge"... I have owned both of these vehicles
> in this comparison. A 97 Acura Integra GS-R 5spd and a 99 Black Mustang GT
> 5spd. And guess what you can talk all the shit you want, all the specs you
> want, but guess what, My 99 GT totally destroys that GS-R in every aspect I
> can think of. Cornering? Guess what the GT whoops it, raw power and
> acceleration, the GT whoops it. I have driven both hard in a variety of
> circumstances, and I KNOW from experience the GT beats out the GS-R in every
> measurement you can take, and by a wide margin I might add. And they are
> the same price, now whos getting the better car??? Don't get me wrong the
> GS-R was a fun to drive well performing car, but its no match for the GT.
> This is fact, and I have proven this to myself and others who have riden in
> both of my cars.
Sorry... The integra GS-R is legendary for it's handling. I
do not believe for even a fraction of a second that a car
with a solid rear axle suspension is going to handle better
than a GS-R.
You might have power, but you have *NONE* of the refinement.
That interior is tacky/funky/ugly.
>
> Dan
> 99 Black GT 5spd
Lee Cao
Lee Cao
Clint Law wrote:
> >> Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
> >> inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
> >> for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in that
> >> segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
> >> variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
> >> big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
> >
> >The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
> >http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
>
> As you might know (but probably don't) Ford makes several 3.0L V6s - one
> makes 145 HP (I believe it a SOHC setup now, it is very similar to the old
> pushrod 3.0 V6 that's been around forever) - but the other, the DOHC Duratec
> V6 makes 200HP.
Wrong again. The Duratec V6 makes only 185HP.
>
> >The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
>
> Your point?
The point is, Ford doesn't offer a V6 anywhere near the level of
refinement as an Accord V6. =P
> Ford owns Jaguar, and has control over Mazda. While I would not say that
> the Jaguar V8 or the miller cycle V6 were designed by Ford, both (especially
> the Jag V8) have considerable influence from Ford.
LOL, HAHAHAHHAAAAA! Show me proof that Mazda engine designs are
influenced by Ford.
> Sure. That's why it looses in road courses too. A Mustang Cobra, Cobra R,
> and GT outhandle, outbrake, and all around outperform any competitor Honda
> has to offer in their specific market segment.
How the heck do you expect a car with solid rear suspension to
out handle a car that is known to handle extremely well? Mustangs
have power (except for the V6), but their suspension design is
primitive compared to the Integra or Prelude.
Lee Cao
Lee Cao
C E White wrote:
>
> > The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For the
> > same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds weak,
> > huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
> > 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
> > by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
> > like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>
> At least I can fit in a Mustang. To ride in an Inegra I need a hack saw to cut a
> hole in the roof.
Yea... gotta love the way that seat coushion sags down to the wire
frame and you start getting grooves cut into your butt.
>
> Ed
Lee Cao
Lee Cao
94GT wrote:
>
> In article <372D8870...@interpath.com>, cewh...@interpath.com says...
> >
> >> The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For the
> >> same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds weak,
> >> huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang wieghs
> >> 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets eaten
> >> by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of handling
> >> like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
>
> >At least I can fit in a Mustang. To ride in an Inegra I need a hack saw to cut
> a
> >hole in the roof.
>
> They come with that option, it's called a "sun roof". :)
> Actually, the reason you can't fit is that you're probably not a 90 lb teenage
> boy. That's who the car is designed for.
At least the Integra is available with a sun roof... =P
I am 6 foot tall and 240 pounds. I have no problem driving my
sister's '95 Integra LS. Plenty of head room left.
>
> >Ed
Yossarian
> High 12's, that's it? Are you sure about that time? One of the mags, I
think
> Hot Rod, got a bone stock LS1 to run a 12.9. I imagine some nitrous should
get
> it into at least the low 12's, if not better.
With .032-inch jets, they ran a 12...@107.73, and a 12...@108.09 w/
.038-inch. Now that I re-read it, they hit the rev-limiter for half-a-second
on the 2-3 shift. Guess that explains the lousy times. It's in the June
Popular Hotrodding, which also has a feature on a sweet '70 Chevelle 454SS.
Gerald Wang
>> pushrod 3.0 V6 that's been around forever) - but the other, the DOHC Duratec
>> V6 makes 200HP.
>
Not quite, the 185HP is with the single-outlet exhaust while the
quasi-dual nets 200HP.
>The point is, Ford doesn't offer a V6 anywhere near the level of
>refinement as an Accord V6. =P
Don't forget the SVT Contour's 2.5L V6 - 200HP, 169lb/ft.
Regards,
Gerald
ralph
> > >
> > >>How many aftermarket mags are there devoted to just civics or even to
> > >>Hondas as a whole? None that I've seen. There are at least 3 or 4
> > >>mags devoted to mustang performance; each with pages and pages
> > >>(actually more pages than I'd like in a magazine) of aftermarket
> > >>goodies from dozens of vendors.
> > >
magazines dedicated to making it run better; very few about making VMS
(for instance) run better.
--
Fast as lightning, slick as glass.
Out from Hell on a three day pass.
Chris McCann
> do not believe for even a fraction of a second that a car
> with a solid rear axle suspension is going to handle better
> than a GS-R.
agreed, but it IS RWD (Mustang).. FWD is GS-R's achilles heel, just needs a
slightly bigger rear swaybar and minor tweaks...wait, they already did
it...Type R.. :^)
> That interior is tacky/funky/ugly.
Mustang? I'm assuming....
agreed. Seats are just this side of horrible. Pedal positioning summons
retching. Shifter is an experiment gone horribly wrong. Front fender radio
antennas are tacky (ok, that's nitpicking...) ... BUT is IS fast......
Ret2Xanadu
Mugen-Honda engine.
Grier, Brian
>
> "Grier, Brian" wrote:
> >
> > In last years F1 series Honda engines dominated the series,
> > while also causing the most DNFs.
>
> and they did NOT dominate the series.
>
> Are you sure you aren't thinking of CART?
I read that a couple months ago, so I may have made
that mistake. I do not know if I still have the magazine
around, but I'll check.
Brian
'82GL/302/T-Tops
Gary A.
> >> Nah - no supercharger needed necessarily. "Popular Hotrodding" (?) this
> >> month has a LS1 Camaro running high 12s with exhaust and a shot of
> nitrous.
> >> A supercharger is more fun, though.
> >
> > High 12's, that's it? Are you sure about that time? One of the mags, I
> think
> >Hot Rod, got a bone stock LS1 to run a 12.9. I imagine some nitrous should
> get
> >it into at least the low 12's, if not better.
>
> post numbrs from the article, I don't have them handy. With a good Vortech
> low 11s to high 10s seem possible.
The 99 cobra did 12.991 @ 107.41 mph. No nitrous but it did have 4.56
gears installed.
Josh Turner
Greg Husemeier wrote:
>
> Josh Turner <sh...@umich.edu> wrote in message
> news:372BC892...@umich.edu...
> > > Since the average American car owner doesn't understand a thing past
> total
> > > horsepower and torque, I can understand the blind spot your coming out
> of.
> > > Yes, the 1.8L (B18 family) would be hard-pressed to 'do the job' in a
> > > Taurus, because the Taurus is a big, sloppy, heavy land cruiser, and it
> > > needs a large-dosplacment engine. Now this is where it gets
> interesting--is
> > > the Taurus a big heavy car because it supposed to be or because it HAS
> to be
> > > to support a big, cheap and inefficient engine?
> >
> > Are you kidding?
> >
> > No, seriously, are you kidding?
> >
> > Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
> > inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
> > for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in that
> > segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
> > variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
> > big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
>
> The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
> http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
>
> The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
There are two Ford 3.0L V6s available in the Taurus. One is a pushrod
design which makes 145 hp in 1999. The other (which is the one that I am
talking about) is a DOHC 24V which only makes 185 hp in the 1999 Taurus,
but made 200 hp last year and will make 200 hp next year, and which
still makes 200 hp in the Sable (the 1999 Taurus was equipped with a
single, rather than quasi-dual, exhaust, which explains the 15 hp drop).
> >
> > Continuing with our apples to apples comparison, let's look at the
> > luxury lines. Honda offers an entry level luxury sedan (the Acura TL)
> > that uses 3.2L to make 225 hp--that's 70 hp/L. Ford offers an entry
> > level luxury sedan (the Lincoln LS) that uses 3.0L to make 210
> > hp--whaddya know, without even using a calculator I can see that that is
> > also 70 hp/L. Ford also offers entry level luxury sedans that make 80
> > hp/L (the Jaguar S-type), and 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
> > (ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
> > intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
> > Miller cycle.
>
> The Lincoln LS engine looks excellent. Were the Millenia and Jag engines
> designed by Ford?
This question is meaningless. Ford has access to the technology of both
engines, sells both engines, owns the whatever relevant patents there
might be on both engines, and can use either engine in any way or model
that it sees fit. As the LS demonstrates, a simpler derivation of the
AJ26 is being considered for widescale use in the Lincoln and Ford
lineups (LS, Thunderbird, and possibly Taurus). The original question
was Honda v. Ford engines, not "engines designed by people who have
Honda on their paychecks v. engines designed by people that have Ford
Motor Company on their paychecks."
> Also, the Millenia motor (Miller cycle) is not normally aspirated. It isn't
> fair to compare
> HP/L of normally aspirated cars to those with forced induction.
Sure it is. This isn't racing; there's no sanctioning body saying that
you can't use forced induction, or that forced induction cars are in a
different class than aspo cars. Forced induction is one way of
increasing the flexibility and amount of power available from an
internal combustion engine, just like VTEC. Honda has some experience
with turbocharging, and their engineers I'm sure are smart enough to
figure out superchargers. It's their choice not to use it; they've
decided for whatever reason that they can get better results from a VTEC
aspo design. If we're going to analyze the wisdom of that decision, we
have to look at all of the other choices available, which includes
forced induction.
> >
> > The correct inference to draw from this is that, while 100 hp/L is
> > possible at larger engine displacements (look at the S52 BMW 3.2 L,
> > which makes 321 hp), it is both hideously expensive and totally
> > unecessary, even in the eyes of the technology mavens at Honda.
>
> Yet the same nearly stock 3.2L (BMW) engine in the M3 chassis, with its
> linear powerband has
> been winning many supertouring races against the likes of Porsche, etc.
Are we talking about racing? No, we're talking about street cars.
There's no question that the S52 is an excellent engine. It does have a
broad, smooth powerband. It is also an obscenely expensive engine to
build, which restricts its availability to a very small number of very
expensive cars. It's perfectly suited to racing, where cost is no object
and displacement typically matters a lot. On the street, the equation is
exactly reversed: Cost is paramount, and displacement matters hardly at
all. An engine like the Ford 4.6L, or even the LS1, is a "better" engine
for a street car, because it makes the same power at far, far lower
cost. Now, BMW's M division makes a small number of expensive cars, and
thus isn't terribly concerned about cost (at least in Europe), but for
most automakers operating in the majority of market segments, cost is
important and a 100 hp/L 3.2L simply can't pay its own way.
> >
> > Even Honda's little engines that you're so proud of are essentially
> > marketing tools rather than performance products. If, for some reason,
> > you want/need to get 200 hp out of a 1.8L four, it's far better to
> > simply turbocharge it.
>
> Obviously Honda has experience with turbocharging as they've been using
> this technology in their F1 engines. For whatever reason they've decided to
> go
> with VVT like Toyota and BMW have in prod cars. Are you suggesting that
> BMW, Honda and
> Toyota don't know what they're doing?
As I noted above, there are plusses and minuses to each decision.
There's no reason to assume that one solution is better than another,
simply because the learned folks at Honda have chosen it. Note also that
neither BMW nor Toyota have used VVT in the same way that Honda has (the
new Celica aside). Both have used VVT to increase the power and
flexibility of larger engines, not to make 100 hp/L four cylinders. My
gripe with Honda is that an engine that small doesn't make enough useful
power down low. A turbo can solve that problem, but VTEC does not.
> > Modern turbos have few of the emissions and
> > durability problems of the early versions, and they're likely cheaper to
> > engineer and build than the titanium connecting rod bedecked B18C.
> > Moreover, and this is the really critical point, a well-designed turbo
> > powerplant gives you a far broader, more usable power band than is found
> > in the peaky little Hondas, and affords a lot more torque down low, in
> > addition to the power up high. Honda, though, found it was easy to
> > capitalize on their admitted racing success by coming up with a unique
> > concept (peaky high-hp engines) brought about by a technology with a
> > cool acronym (VTEC). I have to say, it's worked admirably. A whole
> > generation of people have grown up thinking that because their 125 hp
> > Civic has VTEC, it is somehow a fast, powerful car.
>
> Then why is the Integra GSR significantly faster than the Escort with the
> ZTEC motor?
What? Because it makes 40 more horsepower. What does this have to do
with anything? I'm not saying that Honda engines aren't powerful. They
are. I'm just saying that the *kind* of power that Honda engines make is
not as useful as the kind of power made by other engines, such as larger
sixes and turbo fours. And its "Zetec," not "ZTEC."
> Why doesn't Ford turbocharge their cars?
Because Ford isn't necessarily trying to get 100 hp/liter out of a four
cylinder. They don't need to--unlike Honda, they've recognized the
benefits that larger diplacement and more cylinders can bring.
What about the drawbacks of
> turbocharging
> (increased heat, more moving parts, more oil wear, spooldown problems when
> shutting
> off the motor at high rpm's, etc.)?
What about them? I never claimed that turbocharging was a perfect
solution, only that it yielded better results than the aspo solution
Honda has come up with.
> >
> > > The Mustang GT makes 260hp from the 4.6L SOHC. Sounds good, right? For
> the
> > > same price, the Integra GS-R makes 170hp from a 1.8L DOHC VTEC. Sounds
> weak,
> > > huh? Both cars are about the same size--but guess what, the Mustang
> wieghs
> > > 1000lbs more. 1000LBS MORE! That's *1000lbs*. All of that power gets
> eaten
> > > by it's own design compromises, and has the additional problem of
> handling
> > > like garbage compared to the lighter, better-sprung Integra.
> >
> > I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
> > The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
> > power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
> > half faster to 60?
>
> Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
> Integra
> Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
> is a better
> test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo).
We were talking primarily about engines. The question of weight came up
as it relates to engine performance. Handling is a whole different can
of worms, that could be the subject of a flame festival all its own. I
won't talk too much about handling, other than to say that I'm fairly
confident that a Cobra or Cobra R could whip anything Honda has to offer
(short of an NSX) on almost any race course, with the possible exception
of a tight autocross.
Josh Turner
does it weigh? How tall is it? How long is it? When I say "dimensionally
similar," I'm perhaps not being as precise as I could. What I should
have said is "with dimensional differences that are meaningless in that
application." An I-6 would be slightly longer; a V6 would be wider, but
would not be as long or as tall. Using eyeball measurements (as I also
don't have any data on the S2000s engine bay) along with the engines
used in silmilarly sized competitors, I'd guess that a 2.X or small 3.X
liter six would fit just fine under the Honda's hood. As for weight,
"about the same" is an inherently fuzzy measure, but my guess is that
even if the six weighed more, the increased flexibility of a powerplant
that size would more than counteract the small weight penalty. While
HP/lb, or torque/lb are more useful measurements than HP/L, they still
are meaningless when looked at in a vacuum. Racing engines produce
excellent HP/lb figures, but would be completely unlivable on the
street, and thus would not make a good street engine. You can't talk
about any aspect of engine design without keeping in mind the market for
which you are designing.
I'm reserving final judgment on the S2000 until I can drive one, but my
experience with previous Honda VTEC 4 cyl. designs (the 1.8, 1.6, and
2.2 liters) leads me to suspect that the S2000 will be quite gutless low
in the rev range, and offer spectacular power over 6000 or so RPM. This
is entertaining on a deserted mountain road, but how many chances do you
get to wind your mill out to 8,000 RPM on your average commute? I prefer
an engine that is flexible enough to be fun when I have the chance to
romp, and also be fun even on relatively crowded streets (which are
increasingly common these days). Applying VTEC to a very small 4 cyl,
and getting a high specific output from that engine way up in the rev
band, simply cannot not do that. A larger displacement six cylinder can.
Clint Law
Brian Kaul wrote in message <372E6F46...@umr.edu>...
>
>
>Guy Under The Bridge wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 01 May 1999 22:00:58 GMT, row...@bellsouth.net (Joshua Lowe)
wrote:
>>
>> >Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC in the new Cobra R? Why was
>> >there a custom built 351w made for the 95 Cobra R?
>>
>> And do these engines show up in any other car? Like, say...trucks?
>
>Not the DOHC. There is a 5.4 SOHC in Ford trucks.
There is a 5.4 DOHC in the 99 Navigator.
Clint Law
Lee Cao wrote in message <372E76E4...@leecao.com>...
>
>
>Clint Law wrote:
>
>> >> Let's compare apples to apples, here. The Taurus uses a "big, cheap,
>> >> inefficient" DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp. The Accord uses a...(wait
>> >> for it) *DOHC 3.0L V6 that makes 200 hp.* All of the other cars in
that
>> >> segment offer a similarly sized, similarly powerful engine, with minor
>> >> variations. Looks to me like a big engine is just necessary to move a
>> >> big car, even from the engineering geniuses at Honda.
>> >
>> >The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
>> >http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
>>
>> makes 145 HP (I believe it a SOHC setup now, it is very similar to the
old
Duratec
>> V6 makes 200HP.
>
>Wrong again. The Duratec V6 makes only 185HP.
No, wrong again. Some Duratec V6s make 185HP, but if you get one with the
dual exhaust ordered - kazam - 200HP.
BTW, it was only this year that Ford offered the 3.0L Duratech V6 without
the dual exhaust, up until this year it had been standard.
>
>>
>> >The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
>>
>> Your point?
>
>The point is, Ford doesn't offer a V6 anywhere near the level of
>refinement as an Accord V6. =P
>
>> Ford owns Jaguar, and has control over Mazda. While I would not say that
>> the Jaguar V8 or the miller cycle V6 were designed by Ford, both
(especially
>> the Jag V8) have considerable influence from Ford.
>
>LOL, HAHAHAHHAAAAA! Show me proof that Mazda engine designs are
>influenced by Ford.
Okay, Ford has control over Mazda - especially in the Financial areas. To
think that Mazda makes a motor without Fords O.K. is silly. And to think
that Ford is going to let one of it's subsidiaries design a motor without
letting it having any infulence is also silly. I will agree that it is
probably not a huge amount of technical influence - probably related more
towards the economy of the motors (for Mazda in particular) - but that is
still influence, and Ford is still paying for most of the devolpement.
>> Sure. That's why it looses in road courses too. A Mustang Cobra, Cobra
R,
>> and GT outhandle, outbrake, and all around outperform any competitor
Honda
>> has to offer in their specific market segment.
>
>How the heck do you expect a car with solid rear suspension to
>out handle a car that is known to handle extremely well? Mustangs
>have power (except for the V6), but their suspension design is
>primitive compared to the Integra or Prelude.
How the heck do you expect a FWD car with 60% of it's weight over the front
wheels to outhandle a car known for it's racing capabilities (specifically
the Cobra, but the GT is no slouch either). Simple, you adjust and devolop
you designs to get the most out of your specific platform choice. Just
because a car has a solid rear axle doesn't mean that witha little though
and suspension work (and in the Mustang's case 35 years of evolution) it
can't handle *very* well.
Go ahead, race a Mustang GT and a GS-R on a road course and see which one
wins. I think you will be very surprised.
Also, note that the Mustang Cobra and the new Cobra R have a fully
independant rear suspension.
Dan Bender
> do not believe for even a fraction of a second that a car
> with a solid rear axle suspension is going to handle better
> than a GS-R.
>
>
> That interior is tacky/funky/ugly.
I have confirmed this myself, look I owned both cars, and I can solidly say
the Mustang outhandles the GS-R by a large margin. Maybe this is due to
wider rubber but it gets much better ratings through the slalom and skidpad,
and thats fact. Yes it did handle great, but the Mustang handles better,
you can say what you want, but I have personal experience with these cars
and published facts from 2 auto magazines that proves my point. The GS-R's
interior is nice, but my leather seats in my stang are very very
comfortable, so I ask you this, have you spent over 2 years in a GS-R and
spent over 2 months in a 99 Mustang GT to makes these comments? I realize
some of the looks and comfort is opinion, but as far as performance goes,
there are no opinions about it. The new 99 Mustang GT is one mean car, and
embarrasses the GS-R in raw speed and handling. Plus now that I drive a RWD
I think FWD sucks, I got sick of wheel hop when I got on the GS-R hard.
There is a reason for RWD on TRUE sports cars, and I realize why this is,
weight transfer etc etc... Argue all you want, its just not true.. Like I
said don't get me wrong the GS-R is a nice car, just not as good as the 99
Mustang GT.. Before I go I would like to publish facts about both cars in
the 1999 Road and Track "Sports and GT Cars" issue. I will post strictly
handling numbers and not speed, that would be embarrassing anyways.
99 Acura Integra GS-R
Maximum stopping distance 60mph- 144ft
Maximum stopping distance 80mph - 258 ft
Lateral accel 200ft skidpad - .82g
Speed Thru 700ft slalom 60.1mph
99 Mustang GT
Maximum stopping distance 60mph - 128ft
Maximum stopping distance 80mph - 228ft
Lateral accel 200ft skidpad - .87g
Speed Thru 700ft slalom - 62.7 mph
Just to mention yer prized 80-90 grand exotic the NSX only did SLIGHTLY
better and I mean Slightly better for 60 grand more??? Thats refinement
huh..
99 Acura NSX
Maximum stopping distance 60mph - 123ft
Maximum stopping distance 80mph - 212ft
Lateral accel 200ft skidpad - .89g
Speed Thru 700ft slalom - 63.0 mph
The new mustang is very very impressive. It outhandled most of the cars in
the whole issue and even posted better numbers on the slalom than the C5,
BMW, Integra, Jaguar, Mercedes, Mitsubishi Eclipse GS-T, & its rival the
Firebird Trans-Am. Before you say one is better have the facts, I say its
better not cause I own one but cause I owned both cars, and its proven..
99 Black Mustang GT 5spd
Dan Bender
>
> I am 6 foot tall and 240 pounds. I have no problem driving my
> sister's '95 Integra LS. Plenty of head room left.
At least the Mustang is available in a CONVERTIBLE! hahahah
gre...@my-dejanews.com
sh...@umich.edu wrote:
>
>
> Greg Husemeier wrote:
> >
>
> > >
> > > Continuing with our apples to apples comparison, let's look at the
> > > luxury lines. Honda offers an entry level luxury sedan (the Acura TL)
> > > that uses 3.2L to make 225 hp--that's 70 hp/L. Ford offers an entry
> > > level luxury sedan (the Lincoln LS) that uses 3.0L to make 210
> > > hp--whaddya know, without even using a calculator I can see that that is
> > > also 70 hp/L. Ford also offers entry level luxury sedans that make 80
> > > hp/L (the Jaguar S-type), and 84 hp/L (the Millenia S). The former uses
> > > (ta-da!) variable valve timing *and* a three position, variable length
> > > intake manifold. The latter uses a technology even sexier than that--the
> > > Miller cycle.
> >
> > The Lincoln LS engine looks excellent. Were the Millenia and Jag engines
> > designed by Ford?
>
> This question is meaningless. Ford has access to the technology of both
> engines, sells both engines, owns the whatever relevant patents there
> might be on both engines, and can use either engine in any way or model
> that it sees fit. As the LS demonstrates, a simpler derivation of the
> AJ26 is being considered for widescale use in the Lincoln and Ford
> lineups (LS, Thunderbird, and possibly Taurus). The original question
> was Honda v. Ford engines, not "engines designed by people who have
> Honda on their paychecks v. engines designed by people that have Ford
> Motor Company on their paychecks."
Is the previous Ford Taurus SHO motor actually a Ford motor? Should GM have
credit for designing the engine from the ZR1 Corvette? Just because a company
has access to the technology doesn't mean they should get credit for designing
the car. Do you think VW deserves credit for the design of the Lambroghini
Countach?
>
> > Also, the Millenia motor (Miller cycle) is not normally aspirated. It isn't
> > fair to compare
> > HP/L of normally aspirated cars to those with forced induction.
>
> Sure it is. This isn't racing; there's no sanctioning body saying that
> you can't use forced induction, or that forced induction cars are in a
> different class than aspo cars. Forced induction is one way of
> increasing the flexibility and amount of power available from an
> internal combustion engine, just like VTEC.
Forced induction increases displacement artificially, that was my point. So
a direct comparison of HP/L between a normally aspirated and forced induction
car isn't the same.
> Honda has some experience
> with turbocharging, and their engineers I'm sure are smart enough to
> figure out superchargers. It's their choice not to use it; they've
> decided for whatever reason that they can get better results from a VTEC
> aspo design. If we're going to analyze the wisdom of that decision, we
> have to look at all of the other choices available, which includes
> forced induction.
Sure, that's fine with me. I have no problems with that. Hp/L would be more
meaningful to compare normal aspo with normal aspo and forced with forced imo.
>
> > >
> > > The correct inference to draw from this is that, while 100 hp/L is
> > > possible at larger engine displacements (look at the S52 BMW 3.2 L,
> > > which makes 321 hp), it is both hideously expensive and totally
> > > unecessary, even in the eyes of the technology mavens at Honda.
> >
> > Yet the same nearly stock 3.2L (BMW) engine in the M3 chassis, with its
> > linear powerband has
> > been winning many supertouring races against the likes of Porsche, etc.
>
> Are we talking about racing?
> No, we're talking about street cars.
> There's no question that the S52 is an excellent engine. It does have a
> broad, smooth powerband. It is also an obscenely expensive engine to
> build, which restricts its availability to a very small number of very
> expensive cars. It's perfectly suited to racing, where cost is no object
> and displacement typically matters a lot. On the street, the equation is
> exactly reversed: Cost is paramount, and displacement matters hardly at
> all. An engine like the Ford 4.6L, or even the LS1, is a "better" engine
> for a street car, because it makes the same power at far, far lower
> cost. Now, BMW's M division makes a small number of expensive cars, and
> thus isn't terribly concerned about cost (at least in Europe), but for
> most automakers operating in the majority of market segments, cost is
> important and a 100 hp/L 3.2L simply can't pay its own way.
As far as cost goes, there's no doubt that the LS1 or Ford 4.6L are cheaper.
I'm suggesting that displacement alone isn't the best solution. Take for
example the Ford Escort Ztec. Would it not have been cheaper or easier to
just offer a larger 4 cyl instead of one with vvt? How about the Ford Cobra
SVT... why go with 4 Valves per cylinder instead of cramming as much
displacement as possible under the hood? Increasing the previous gen 4.9L
'GT' engine to 6.0L would certainly have been cheaper than designing a new
head right?
>
> > >
> > > Even Honda's little engines that you're so proud of are essentially
> > > marketing tools rather than performance products. If, for some reason,
> > > you want/need to get 200 hp out of a 1.8L four, it's far better to
> > > simply turbocharge it.
> >
> > Obviously Honda has experience with turbocharging as they've been using
> > this technology in their F1 engines. For whatever reason they've decided to
> > go
> > with VVT like Toyota and BMW have in prod cars. Are you suggesting that
> > BMW, Honda and
> > Toyota don't know what they're doing?
>
> As I noted above, there are plusses and minuses to each decision.
> There's no reason to assume that one solution is better than another,
> simply because the learned folks at Honda have chosen it. Note also that
> neither BMW nor Toyota have used VVT in the same way that Honda has (the
> new Celica aside). Both have used VVT to increase the power and
> flexibility of larger engines, not to make 100 hp/L four cylinders.
The current Accord, Acura TL, and Oddessey Minivan offer VTEC engines with
3.0 and 3.2L respectively. How many cylinders do you think they're using?
(hint: it's > 4)
> My
> gripe with Honda is that an engine that small doesn't make enough useful
> power down low. A turbo can solve that problem, but VTEC does not.
"doesn't make enough power down low" compared to what? If you compare
engines of the same displacement, the VTEC's do fine. The fact that the VTEC
motors can compete with engines of much larger displacement is a bonus imo.
Would you not be impressed if a Ztec 32v V8 Mustang Cobra were as fast 0-120
as a Dodge Viper? (assuming such an engine/car existed)? Sure it wouldn't
have "much torque down low" compared to the Viper, but it's all relative.
>
> > > Modern turbos have few of the emissions and
> > > durability problems of the early versions, and they're likely cheaper to
> > > engineer and build than the titanium connecting rod bedecked B18C.
> > > Moreover, and this is the really critical point, a well-designed turbo
> > > powerplant gives you a far broader, more usable power band than is found
> > > in the peaky little Hondas, and affords a lot more torque down low, in
> > > addition to the power up high. Honda, though, found it was easy to
> > > capitalize on their admitted racing success by coming up with a unique
> > > concept (peaky high-hp engines) brought about by a technology with a
> > > cool acronym (VTEC). I have to say, it's worked admirably. A whole
> > > generation of people have grown up thinking that because their 125 hp
> > > Civic has VTEC, it is somehow a fast, powerful car.
> >
> > Then why is the Integra GSR significantly faster than the Escort with the
> > ZTEC motor?
>
> What? Because it makes 40 more horsepower. What does this have to do
> with anything? I'm not saying that Honda engines aren't powerful. They
> are. I'm just saying that the *kind* of power that Honda engines make is
> not as useful as the kind of power made by other engines, such as larger
> sixes and turbo fours. And its "Zetec," not "ZTEC."
So tell me, does the "kind" of horsepower the 99 Accord V6, Acura TL, and
Honda Oddessy V6 seem terribly inferior to the "kind" of horsepower produced
by the Ford Taurus V6 3.0L, Lincoln, and Ford Minivan? Please elaborate...
>
> > Why doesn't Ford turbocharge their cars?
>
> Because Ford isn't necessarily trying to get 100 hp/liter out of a four
> cylinder. They don't need to--unlike Honda, they've recognized the
> benefits that larger diplacement and more cylinders can bring.
>
So what benefit does the Lincoln with 210 HP have over the Acura TL?
> What about the drawbacks of
> > turbocharging
> > (increased heat, more moving parts, more oil wear, spooldown problems when
> > shutting
> > off the motor at high rpm's, etc.)?
>
> What about them? I never claimed that turbocharging was a perfect
> solution, only that it yielded better results than the aspo solution
> Honda has come up with.
Perhaps Honda is more concerned with delivering a HP solution while
maximizing reliability? Are you upset with the fact that BMW and Toyota are
doing the same thing? (using vvt instead of forced induction)
> > > I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
> > > The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
> > > power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
> > > half faster to 60?
> >
> > Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
> > Integra
> > Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
> > is a better
> > test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo).
>
> We were talking primarily about engines. The question of weight came up
> as it relates to engine performance. Handling is a whole different can
> of worms, that could be the subject of a flame festival all its own. I
> won't talk too much about handling, other than to say that I'm fairly
> confident that a Cobra or Cobra R could whip anything Honda has to offer
> (short of an NSX) on almost any race course, with the possible exception
> of a tight autocross.
Let's see some comparisons. You sound pretty confident. Can you cite some
race results where Cobra's and Cobra R's have "whiped" the Integra GSR on a
good race course which tests handling and braking?
Greg
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Lee Cao
Why the heck would I want a convertible? Especially
one as poorly conceived as the Mustang?
Anything else you want to say to back up your claim that the
Integra is designed for "90 pound teengers"?
> Dan
> 99 Black GT 5spd
Lee Cao
gre...@my-dejanews.com
"Clint Law" <aw...@eosinc.com> wrote:
>
> Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkl3f$8...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
> >
> >Jared Rude <jr...@nospamforme.bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >> Guy Under The Bridge wrote
> >>
> Cobra
> >> engine is made in Detroit by Ford. The Honda engines only have a few
> >> advantages over the Ford engines. One would be the design of the cooling
> >> passages in the top of the cylinder block to help with cooling of the
> >> combustion chamber, another would be counter rotating balance shafts (if
> >> they do have them at all) and the last *might* be VTEC. Frankly, VTEC
> >isn't
> >> as great as everyone claims it to be. There are less complex ways of
> >making
> >> power than variable valve timing.
> >
> >powered Ford Escorts.
> >Exactly what makes the VTEC system more complex than say, Toyota's VVTi
> >system or any other
> >competitors?
>
> variable timing systems I'm aware of just move the existing cam, not switch
> over to another one with different profiles.
It actually uses a completely different profile of the SAME CAM. Many other
competitors alter cam timing only (infinitely) while the VTEC system alters
the timing and lift in 2 modes: economy and performance.
> >> "Internal Combustion Fundamentals" writen by John B. Heywood, published
> by
> >> McGraw Hill. Yes, that's chapters one and two. The most basic of all
> >> chapters in any book.
> >
> >So, let's see some comparisons then. How DO the Ford motors compare to
> >Honda
> >motors in terms of power/unit engine weight or volume?
>
> I'll put it this way, a iron block, iron heads Ford 5.0 wieghs less than 500
> lbs (about 450 to be exact). A DOHC aluminum block and heads 4.6 will be
> heavier (as will a SOHC 4.6 with Iron blocka nd alluminum heads), but still
> around 500 lbs.
You still haven't shown any comparisons of the two.
>
> >>
> >> >As one can see, even though the 4.6L SHO has greater total power, this
> is
> >> >meanigless in a purely performance consideration, as the B18C has a far
> >> >greater specific power output. To be exact, the B18C enjoys over 70%
> more
> >> >specific power. To a racer's eyes, this kind of performance from a stock
> >> >factory engine is amazing, and why the Type-R is the racer's choice.
> >Total
> >> >power is secondary from a purely technical standpoint.
> >>
> >> Power at the wheels wins races. Not hp/liter at the wheels.
> >
> >What kind of races? Are you suggesting that the power of a mustang V8
> >allows it to win
> >on a race course (with curves) against an Integra Type R or Prelude?
> > Does handling have anything to
> >do with it?
>
> Handling has lots to do with running a race course. Power also has a lot to
> do with it (unless your in a parking lot autocross - than it doesn't play a
> great role). The Mustang also has a better F/R weight ratio over the
> Prelude and Integra, brakes better (if you use the correct comparisons, Type
> R to Cobra (or Cobra R, if you want to be picky), Prelude to GT (even though
> the Prelude is more expensive...), handles equally or better.
Well, the Prelude won Car and Driver's "best handling car under $30,000"
competitioin. I do believe the Cobra would fit this category, right? Were
the editors of C&D somehow mistaken? Perhaps you should write them a letter
explaining the errors of their conclusion.
> >> what it does in the physical world. Torque accelerates a car. Power, in
> >the
> >> real world, boils down to be the rate of change of acceleration. Torque
> is
> >> not "accelerating power." Torque is rotational force, which is converted
> >to
> >> linear force by the drivetrain, which accelerates the car. Power is the
> >> acceleration which the torque can maintain within the vehicle's speed
> >range.
> >
> >HP is the speed at which torque can be delivered. VTEC motors can usually
> >deliver
> >their HP more quickly than Ford engines of similar displacement.
>
> No. HP is a function of RPM and torque. HP varies widely with RPM (and
> torque), and Honda motors as a rule deliver their peak HP far later than
> that of a Ford motor of similar output (or displacement). They do this
> because they have less volumtric efficiency (which is what creates torque),
> but are able to carry that to a higher RPM.
So, the Honda engines are able to deliver what torque they have at the same or
faster rate when compared to Ford motors of EQUAL DISPLACEMENT.
>
> Note: All production VTEC 4 cyls peak HP are *at* the redline, whereas most
> Ford (and almost all other motors in production today, for that matter)
> deliver the peak HP 2000-2500 RPM below redline.
Do you just post your opinions up here or do you have facts to back them up?
Check out the following stats for the 99 Civic Si from:
http://www.caranddriver.com/FrameSet/0,1350,_sl_Article_sl_0_cm_1298_cm_1246_6_1
7_cm_00,00.html
ENGINE
Type..........4-in-line, aluminum block and head
Bore x stroke..........3.19 x 3.05 in, 81.0 x 77.4mm
Displacement..........97 cu in, 1595cc
Compression ratio..........10.2:1
Engine-control system..........Honda PGM-FI with port fuel injection
Emissions controls..........3-way catalytic converter, feedback air-fuel-ratio
control, EGR
Valve gear..........belt-driven double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder,
hydraulic lifters, variable intake- and exhaust-valve timing and lift
Power (SAE net)..........160 bhp @ 7600 rpm
Torque (SAE net)..........111 lb-ft @ 7000 rpm
Redline..........8000 rpm
>
> >
> >>
> >> >In terms of cost efficiency, Honda is the way to go. For the cost of a
> >$21k
> >> >Mustang GT, you can get a Civic DX and swap in a Spoon N1 B18C and NOS
> >it,
> >> >blowing away that GT completely. For the cost of a Cobra, you can put in
> >a
> >> >blower, fuel pump, intercooler, intakes, header, and carbon-fiber
> >> >replacments for an ultra-fast, super-quick road monster. If you're not
> up
> >> to
> >> >extensive car-modding and just want a good stock performer, go for the
> >Si,
> >> >GS-R or Type-R if you're planning on participating in the local rallies.
> >If
> >> >you want to blow away guys at the stoplight, get a Mustang GT or a
> Cobra.
> >>
> >> You've obviously never seen aftermarket suspensions for the Mustangs.
> >There
> >> are more than 10 aftermarket suspansion manufactures who can make the
> >> Mustang handle and keep pace with your beloved NSX. I know, none of you
> >will
> >> belive me, but it's true.
> >
> >How do you know this to be true? Did your read it from a sales brochure?
>
> Wathc a SCCA race sometime - you will see Mustangs beat pretty much any car
> out there (and in lightly modded form in the lower classes). Not that many
> NSX's run in SCCA competition (maybe becuase they aren't cost effective
> enough?), but get there but spanked by Mustangs - for about half the money.
Prove it. Let's see you post some references to SCCA race results showing
Mustangs beating the Integra Type R.
gre...@my-dejanews.com
"Clint Law" <aw...@eosinc.com> wrote:
>
> Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkmms$d...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
> >
> >The current 3.0L Ford Taurus puts out 145 HP (not 200hp) according to
> >http://www.edmunds.com/newcars/1999/ford/taurus/sesedan.html#specs
>
> As you might know (but probably don't) Ford makes several 3.0L V6s - one
> makes 145 HP (I believe it a SOHC setup now, it is very similar to the old
> pushrod 3.0 V6 that's been around forever) - but the other, the DOHC Duratec
> V6 makes 200HP.
Not bad.
>
> >The previous SHO was a Yamaha motor (not Ford).
>
> Your point?
Ford doesn't deserve credit for this wonderful engine.
> >
> >Then why is the Integra GSR significantly faster than the Escort with the
> >ZTEC motor?
> >Why doesn't Ford turbocharge their cars? What about the drawbacks of
> >turbocharging
> >(increased heat, more moving parts, more oil wear, spooldown problems when
> >shutting
> >off the motor at high rpm's, etc.)?
>
> Ford does turbocharge cars. Only in Europe today. As a matter of fact, by
> any account the turbocharged Cosworth 4 cyl available in Britian is one of
> the finest 4 cyl motors made, it just isn't available here. And that GSR
> also costs about $8K more than a Escort.
The GSR will also outperform the domestic Escort by a considerable margin. I
thought the Cosworth was discontinued?
> >
> >Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
> >Integra
> >Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
> >is a better
> >test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo). Do you
> >think the Integra's
> >lighter engine weight and superior suspension design have anything to do
> >with its
> >overall performance (not just straight line)?
>
> Sure. That's why it looses in road courses too. A Mustang Cobra, Cobra R,
> and GT outhandle, outbrake, and all around outperform any competitor Honda
> has to offer in their specific market segment.
Then why did the Honda Prelude win Car and Driver's "best handling car under
$30K" competition? Did they forget to consider the Cobra? Do you have any
stats to back up your claim?
sama...@my-dejanews.com
"Clint Law" <aw...@eosinc.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Really, then why is there a 5.4 DOHC
> >
> >how many ccs is that?
>
> I don't know the exact number, around 54000 ( yes I know 1 liter = 1000
> cc'sThey round off the liters )
>
> Actually the only 5.4L DOHC made now is only a truck engine (in the
> navigator) - I'll bet the Cobra R will get an all alluminum version of it
> (the one in the navigator has to weigh a ton).
don't they still offer the 5.4 in the f series?
> The 4.6 DOHC made right now
> is a very good example of a race engine.
oh yeah, when you look under the hood of a cobra and see the snake on the
intake manifold you know it means business, but then again, the type r engine
is a race engine too, both very impressive engines.
>
> >
> >>
> >> >> Oh my goodness. This whole hp/liter crap begins again. Power/unit
> >> >> displacement means nothing. If you said power/unit engine weight or
> >> >> power/unit engine volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal
> >> >> displacement) then it would be different.
> >> >
> >> >I know the B18C 98 spec-R is around 1800cc. What's the 4.6L DOHC?
> >>
> >> HAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
> >>
> >> You are a self-proclaimed genius, and you can't convert liters to
> >> cubic centimeters?
> >
> >that wasn't even what the other guy told him to do anyway, he said "engine
> >volume (of the entire engine, not swept internal displacemet)" the guy is
> >stupid none-the-less. it is people like the one that you have just replied
> to
> >that give us honda and acura drivers a bad name...
>
> True, I've read several posts of his. No one can say the VTEC 4's are
> compact, not for any size motor really, especially not for a I4.
on the side of honda the 4.6 DOHC isn't exactly a compact motor :)
>
> >> >And the amount of money you will have to spend on just making a Mustang
> >> >handle like an NSX will turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster--for
> every
> >>
> >> Really, I can turn a Civic into a 500hp road monster for $3500?
> >
> >what, you didn't know? your ass better call somebody!! hehehe
> >seriously, with a bit more money, I could put on a mustang II front susp.
> >(added support for the engine) drop in a 454, convert the drivetrain to fr,
> >slap a blower on it, and shit yeah, I'll be running faster.
>
> Heck with the 454, Ford sells a 514 cubic inch, carbed, pushrod motor that
> right out of the box makes 600 HP (and runs like 7K RPM). Put on a blower,
> figure 800-1000 HP, a good tranny (I' seriously doubt there is a FWD tranny
> that can handle all the torque, not to many RWD ones) and it'll be a lot
> faster. Toal investment? Maybe $20K, including good supension and chassis
> mods to be able to hook up well. Driveable as a Mustang (or other RWD
> sports car) with the same amount of capability? I think not....
>
> Basically you just destroyed the one thing the Civic does well and the one
> reason people should buy it.
>
>
I was sort of making a point that a comparison between a civic and mustang in
and of itself is silly, they are different classes of vehicles, the V6 is a
close compairison, and sales figures and shit like that aside I think it is
pretty much a toss-up between the civic and the V6 mustang, it all depends on
what you want out of your car, but that is the reason to get any car isn't it?
--
Sam
Stilian Elenkov
Stilian
Dan Bender
> one as poorly conceived as the Mustang?
>
> Anything else you want to say to back up your claim that the
> Integra is designed for "90 pound teengers"?
Whatever... From what I have experienced the Mustang rides higher and more
comfortable than my GS-R. The GS-R does have alot of room for a small car.
I made no claim about 90lbs teenagers or what it was designed for, frankly I
don't care about this issue, I was just being as stupid as you were about
the sunroof post, I am sorry. Do yourself a favor and go to my other post
about the performance aspects of these 2 cars. There isn't much left to
talk about now is there? I would also like to add the Mustang has much
better visibility than the GS-R. One good thing about the GS-R was it had
good acoustics for my aftermarket stereo equipment, mainly in part to the
hatchback design, but thats about the only thing I can think of that it
excelled in. I also see you didn't respond to my other post, and I know
why.. It just blows my mind that after driving both these cars, that one
can even compare any car made by Honda except the NSX to the 99 Mustang GT.
It's just pure insanity to think a Civic or GS-R or Type R for that matter
even stand a chance. Lets also put 5 grand in mods into a GS-R and Mustang
and see how that gap widens even more. Now don't get me wrong, the Acura
GS-R was a very nice car, but from all these discussions on comparing it to
a 99 Mustang GT is sacrilege. There is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that
sounds as beautiful as a American V-8 when you get on it.
99 Black GT 5spd
Josh Turner
gre...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <92576028...@news.remarQ.com>,
> "Clint Law" <aw...@eosinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Greg Husemeier wrote in message <7gkl3f$8...@news.dns.microsoft.com>...
> > Handling has lots to do with running a race course. Power also has a lot to
> > do with it (unless your in a parking lot autocross - than it doesn't play a
> > great role). The Mustang also has a better F/R weight ratio over the
> > Prelude and Integra, brakes better (if you use the correct comparisons, Type
> > R to Cobra (or Cobra R, if you want to be picky), Prelude to GT (even though
> > the Prelude is more expensive...), handles equally or better.
>
> Well, the Prelude won Car and Driver's "best handling car under $30,000"
> competitioin. I do believe the Cobra would fit this category, right? Were
> the editors of C&D somehow mistaken? Perhaps you should write them a letter
> explaining the errors of their conclusion.
It would be five words (or four words and a contraction) long: "The
Cobra now has IRS."
> > >> what it does in the physical world. Torque accelerates a car. Power, in
> > >the
> > >> real world, boils down to be the rate of change of acceleration. Torque
> > is
> > >> not "accelerating power." Torque is rotational force, which is converted
> > >to
> > >> linear force by the drivetrain, which accelerates the car. Power is the
> > >> acceleration which the torque can maintain within the vehicle's speed
> > >range.
> > >
> > >HP is the speed at which torque can be delivered. VTEC motors can usually
> > >deliver
> > >their HP more quickly than Ford engines of similar displacement.
> >
> > No. HP is a function of RPM and torque. HP varies widely with RPM (and
> > torque), and Honda motors as a rule deliver their peak HP far later than
> > that of a Ford motor of similar output (or displacement). They do this
> > because they have less volumtric efficiency (which is what creates torque),
> > but are able to carry that to a higher RPM.
>
> So, the Honda engines are able to deliver what torque they have at the same or
> faster rate when compared to Ford motors of EQUAL DISPLACEMENT.
Who cares? Who put a limit on displacement? I don't give a rat's ass
whether my car displaces 1800, 2500, 4600, or 8000 cc's. I just care
about results. The Ford engine gives better results. FWIW, I'm a big
enough man to admit that the LS1 gives even better results than the 4600
Ford, but that's neither here nor there.
sama...@my-dejanews.com
4.56?!?!?! dear god that thing must have maxed out at 107 like at the 1/8
marker. that would be a sight to see a car blow up to 100 and then you hear it
bouncing off of the rev limiter the rest of the way down the track :)
Josh Turner
gre...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>
> In article <372EFF30...@umich.edu>,
> sh...@umich.edu wrote:
> >
> >
> > Greg Husemeier wrote:
snip
> > > The Lincoln LS engine looks excellent. Were the Millenia and Jag engines
> > > designed by Ford?
> >
> > This question is meaningless. Ford has access to the technology of both
> > engines, sells both engines, owns the whatever relevant patents there
> > might be on both engines, and can use either engine in any way or model
> > that it sees fit. As the LS demonstrates, a simpler derivation of the
> > AJ26 is being considered for widescale use in the Lincoln and Ford
> > lineups (LS, Thunderbird, and possibly Taurus). The original question
> > was Honda v. Ford engines, not "engines designed by people who have
> > Honda on their paychecks v. engines designed by people that have Ford
> > Motor Company on their paychecks."
>
> Is the previous Ford Taurus SHO motor actually a Ford motor? Should GM have
> credit for designing the engine from the ZR1 Corvette? Just because a company
> has access to the technology doesn't mean they should get credit for designing
> the car. Do you think VW deserves credit for the design of the Lambroghini
> Countach?
Again, the initial poster's assertion was the Ford's engine offerings
were massively inferior to Honda's. When comparing engine offerings, one
should compare engines that the company sells. Ford sells both Mazdas
and Jaguars. End of story, IMHO. If not, where is a better place to draw
the line? For example, the AJ26 was largely completed when Ford bought
Jaguar. However, the newest version of the engine has a much more
sophisticated VVT system than did the first iterations of that design.
Under your scheme, which part is Ford and which part is Jaguar? Should
we penalize Ford for not coming up with the block casting, but laud them
for their infinitely variable valvetrain? What about the old Jaguar I-6,
which was modified and put into the DB7? Is that a Ford engine? A Jaguar
engine? An Aston-Martin engine? It's much simpler to simply compare the
engines that a company offers for sale, and leave the questions of
pedigree to the historians.
Now, let's talk about the fact that Ford is the only company in the
world that sells a twin-turbo, FWD, 5-speed, inline six. <g>.
> >
> > > Also, the Millenia motor (Miller cycle) is not normally aspirated. It isn't
> > > fair to compare
> > > HP/L of normally aspirated cars to those with forced induction.
> >
> > Sure it is. This isn't racing; there's no sanctioning body saying that
> > you can't use forced induction, or that forced induction cars are in a
> > different class than aspo cars. Forced induction is one way of
> > increasing the flexibility and amount of power available from an
> > internal combustion engine, just like VTEC.
>
> Forced induction increases displacement artificially, that was my point. So
> a direct comparison of HP/L between a normally aspirated and forced induction
> car isn't the same.
I don't think such an easy line should be drawn. Both systems
"artificially" influence the "normal" way in which an internal
combustion engine with a mechanical valvetrain processes air and fuel.
Both are technological solutions to a simple question: How do we flow
more air without sacrifincing driveability? One uses a compressor; the
other essentially varies inlet size. Metaphysically, what's the
difference? Or perhaps it's also "not fair" to compare VVT engines to
non-VVT engines?
> > Honda has some experience
> > with turbocharging, and their engineers I'm sure are smart enough to
> > figure out superchargers. It's their choice not to use it; they've
> > decided for whatever reason that they can get better results from a VTEC
> > aspo design. If we're going to analyze the wisdom of that decision, we
> > have to look at all of the other choices available, which includes
> > forced induction.
>
> Sure, that's fine with me. I have no problems with that. Hp/L would be more
> meaningful to compare normal aspo with normal aspo and forced with forced imo.
>
HP/L is utterly meaningless in terms of street vehicles, no matter which
two engines you're comparing. Other posts have gone into this in great
detail, so I won't repeat it here.
snip
>
> As far as cost goes, there's no doubt that the LS1 or Ford 4.6L are cheaper.
> I'm suggesting that displacement alone isn't the best solution. Take for
> example the Ford Escort Ztec. Would it not have been cheaper or easier to
> just offer a larger 4 cyl instead of one with vvt? How about the Ford Cobra
> SVT... why go with 4 Valves per cylinder instead of cramming as much
> displacement as possible under the hood? Increasing the previous gen 4.9L
> 'GT' engine to 6.0L would certainly have been cheaper than designing a new
> head right?
I don't know. Perhaps. No one ever claimed that Ford made all the right
choices, either. I think in retrospect, a lot of Ford guys are looking
at what GM did with the LS1 and it's family of pushrod V8s, and are
asking themselves if going the SOHC route was the right way to go.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Even Honda's little engines that you're so proud of are essentially
> > > > marketing tools rather than performance products. If, for some reason,
> > > > you want/need to get 200 hp out of a 1.8L four, it's far better to
> > > > simply turbocharge it.
> > >
> > > Obviously Honda has experience with turbocharging as they've been using
> > > this technology in their F1 engines. For whatever reason they've decided to
> > > go
> > > with VVT like Toyota and BMW have in prod cars. Are you suggesting that
> > > BMW, Honda and
> > > Toyota don't know what they're doing?
> >
> > As I noted above, there are plusses and minuses to each decision.
> > There's no reason to assume that one solution is better than another,
> > simply because the learned folks at Honda have chosen it. Note also that
> > neither BMW nor Toyota have used VVT in the same way that Honda has (the
> > new Celica aside). Both have used VVT to increase the power and
> > flexibility of larger engines, not to make 100 hp/L four cylinders.
>
> The current Accord, Acura TL, and Oddessey Minivan offer VTEC engines with
> 3.0 and 3.2L respectively. How many cylinders do you think they're using?
> (hint: it's > 4)
Ha Ha. I wasn't referring to the VTEC 6s. As you point out, Honda has
done much the same thing that BMW and Toyota have done with their larger
engines, which IMO is fine. I was only deriding Honda's choice of going
with hotted-up 4 cylinder VTECs, not any of their other decisions.
Besides, when Honda enthusiasts blather on about hp/l and the
superiority of Honda design, they are typically not referring to the
Odyssey minivan or the Accord V6. They're usually taliking about the
Integra, Civic, or Prelude, which all use high po, VTEC I4s.
> > My
> > gripe with Honda is that an engine that small doesn't make enough useful
> > power down low. A turbo can solve that problem, but VTEC does not.
>
> "doesn't make enough power down low" compared to what? If you compare
> engines of the same displacement, the VTEC's do fine. The fact that the VTEC
> motors can compete with engines of much larger displacement is a bonus imo.
> Would you not be impressed if a Ztec 32v V8 Mustang Cobra were as fast 0-120
> as a Dodge Viper? (assuming such an engine/car existed)? Sure it wouldn't
> have "much torque down low" compared to the Viper, but it's all relative.
This is the best argument on this point that I've heard yet. However, it
still doesn't take into account that the cars against which these VTEC
Hondas (and by that I mean the GS-R and Prelude) compete typically have
larger engines, and thus more power down low. Those are the cars to
which we should compare the VTECs. For example, the Integra GSR 4 door
competes with the SVT Contour, which has 2 extra cylinders, half-a-liter
of extra displacement, and nearly 40 more lbs-ft of torque. The GSR two
door most likely competes against either the Mustang or the Cougar. The
Cougar's cylinder, displacement and torque numbers are similar to the
Contour's, while the Mustang offers a dominating advantage: 4 more
cylinders, 2.6 more liters, and more than double the Integra's torque.
As a result, the Mustang offers performance that the Integra simply
can't match. The Prelude, with its fancy VTEC and ATTS systems, is
verging into Cobra territory, and the Cobra's advantage here is just as
clear as the Mustang's over the Integra.
snip
> > > Then why is the Integra GSR significantly faster than the Escort with the
> > > ZTEC motor?
> >
> > What? Because it makes 40 more horsepower. What does this have to do
> > with anything? I'm not saying that Honda engines aren't powerful. They
> > are. I'm just saying that the *kind* of power that Honda engines make is
> > not as useful as the kind of power made by other engines, such as larger
> > sixes and turbo fours. And its "Zetec," not "ZTEC."
>
> So tell me, does the "kind" of horsepower the 99 Accord V6, Acura TL, and
> Honda Oddessy V6 seem terribly inferior to the "kind" of horsepower produced
> by the Ford Taurus V6 3.0L, Lincoln, and Ford Minivan? Please elaborate...
Don't misunderstand me. I never claimed that Ford engine engineering was
superior to Honda's. I was merely refuting the claim made by another
that Honda's engines were "technically superior" to Ford's. I think it
is pretty clear, from the examples that you yourself cite, that this
original contention is false.
> >
> > > Why doesn't Ford turbocharge their cars?
> >
> > Because Ford isn't necessarily trying to get 100 hp/liter out of a four
> > cylinder. They don't need to--unlike Honda, they've recognized the
> > benefits that larger diplacement and more cylinders can bring.
> >
>
> So what benefit does the Lincoln with 210 HP have over the Acura TL?
None. Well, it is RWD, does come with a stick, and is available with a
V8, none of which the TL can claim, but in the engine department the TL
and the V6 LS seem pretty closely matched. Which, as I pointed out
above, is all that I ever asserted.
> > What about the drawbacks of
> > > turbocharging
> > > (increased heat, more moving parts, more oil wear, spooldown problems when
> > > shutting
> > > off the motor at high rpm's, etc.)?
> >
> > What about them? I never claimed that turbocharging was a perfect
> > solution, only that it yielded better results than the aspo solution
> > Honda has come up with.
>
> Perhaps Honda is more concerned with delivering a HP solution while
> maximizing reliability? Are you upset with the fact that BMW and Toyota are
> doing the same thing? (using vvt instead of forced induction)
I'm not upset by any of this. I could care less what Honda does. But to
answer your question, I have no problem with VVT. When used correctly,
it offers tremendous benefits in tractability, power, fuel economy, and
emissions.
Note that when Honda uses VTEC in other situations, such as the Civic
(not the Si), Accord, or Odyssey, I don't have any problem with it at
all. In those cases, the engine is appropriate to its task, and VTEC
brings soime good stuff to the table.
My problem with Honda's technique comes when they use a radically
massaged 4 cylinder where a small 6 or 8 would be more appropriate. The
result is essentially a race car engine: Very powerful up top, but a
gutless wonder at anything below 6000 RPM, which needs VTEC just to
avoid stalling at lower speeds. Honda's marketing people claim (and a
lot of people seem to believe) that this is some sort of radical advance
in engine building. It's not. It's simply a goofy use of the technology,
which produces a "performance" car that is less fun to drive than its
competition.
While some people might get the warm fuzzies from having an engine that
"performs like a race car," in this context it is anything but a
compliment. Race car engines are typically high-strung, tempermental
beasts that would be a bitch to live with day-to-day. VTEC ameliorates
this condition slighty, but in my street car I'd still rather have an
engine designed for the street than for the track.
Finally, I have my own doubts about whether an engine that is regularly
spun to 8000 RPM is inherently any more reliable than a well designed
turbocharged engine.
> > > > I doubt that the GS-R only weighs 2400 lbs--I think it's closer to 2700.
> > > > The Mustang GT weighs 3400. Still a big difference, but if all the extra
> > > > power "gets eaten" by the weight, how come the Mustang is a second and a
> > > > half faster to 60?
> > >
> > > Which would win on a tight race course with sharp curves? How would an
> > > Integra
> > > Type R or Prelude compare against the Mustang on such a road course (which
> > > is a better
> > > test of the car as a whole, not just the engine & drivetrain imo).
> >
> > We were talking primarily about engines. The question of weight came up
> > as it relates to engine performance. Handling is a whole different can
> > of worms, that could be the subject of a flame festival all its own. I
> > won't talk too much about handling, other than to say that I'm fairly
> > confident that a Cobra or Cobra R could whip anything Honda has to offer
> > (short of an NSX) on almost any race course, with the possible exception
> > of a tight autocross.
>
> Let's see some comparisons. You sound pretty confident. Can you cite some
> race results where Cobra's and Cobra R's have "whiped" the Integra GSR on a
> good race course which tests handling and braking?
As I said, that's a different subject.
Mike Kohlbrenner
>
> The S2000 would have been perfect with a 2.5 I5 or 2.7 I6.
But then they would have had to call it the S2500 or S2700.
Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it?
Mike Kohlbrenner
> ...
> Are you aware that Ford (as much as don't like to admit it) makes F1
> engines that have been winning (still are) more titles than Honda did
> ever. Just because you do not know about them does not mean they do not
> exist.
A Ford powered car has not come close to winning an F1 race
since Michael Schumacher drove for Benetton (sp?) several
years ago. Well, I take that back -- this year's Ford
has finally gotten to be rather competitive. And
before that _SINGLE_ Benetton/Ford dream season, I don't
think Ford engines had much of an impact in F1 since
well before the Honda/Renault decade of domination.
What I find rather amusing is how many downright
inaccurate F1 references get tossed about in these
discussions. Do folks even follow the races?
Of course the other amusing thing is how irrelevant
F1 references are to street car comparisons anyway...
Josh Turner
resulting badge will sound*? Good god.
Mike Kohlbrenner wrote:
>
> Stilian Elenkov wrote:
> >
> > The S2000 would have been perfect with a 2.5 I5 or 2.7 I6.
>
> But then they would have had to call it the S2500 or S2700.
>
> Doesn't quite have the same ring to it does it?
>