new 2008 NSX

[Maxx]

Not sure if this has been posted before or not

AWD with a 4.5 Liter V10 or a 3.6 V6

http://www.sportscarforums.com/f10/2008-ho...x-ii-15765.html

[aaronng]

4.5L V10..... even if they push 500 horses out of it, it'll be back to the same "Hondas don't have torque" BS again when compared to other 5.0L V10 cars.

[Shraka]

Heh heh. That sounds so awesome. :)

The linked post says that it'll be one of the only mid-all layout cars, which is true, but it's in good company. Veyron & Lamborghini are doing it, so why not. :D

I like the way Honda is still focused on developing performance cars, when most of the other JAP companies have either cut their performance line right down (Toyota most prominently, Nissan, Mazda) or are just happy to coast on what they had (Mitsubishi, Subaru). :D

[AusS2000]

Toyota - Lexus LF-A
Nissan - GTR

;)

[sodaz]

4.5L V10..... even if they push 500 horses out of it, it'll be back to the same "Hondas don't have torque" BS again when compared to other 5.0L V10 cars.

Who gives a damn what other people say. A 4.5lt V10 will be a great engine regardless. It's like the F430 4.3lt V8 - it only produces 465nm but a good 360kw and it's an awesome engine. A 4.5lt V10 will have at least as much power but more torque.

[aaronng]

Who gives a damn what other people say. A 4.5lt V10 will be a great engine regardless. It's like the F430 4.3lt V8 - it only produces 465nm but a good 360kw and it's an awesome engine. A 4.5lt V10 will have at least as much power but more torque.
Other cars in the F430 class do not have as large an engine. Imagine, just 2 years ago, that class was lead by a 3.6L V8 (F360). So a 4.3L V8 is the top of the sports car class.

In the V10 class, it's a minimum of 5.0L at the moment. So Honda coming in at 4.5L is a little under.

[aznsiko]

honda has always designed and engineer their cars to that way for a reason.. you dont really need torque unless you are goin to be towing something.. if the engine has adequate amount of torque, enough to move the car then thats all it really needs..

[aaronng]

honda has always designed and engineer their cars to that way for a reason.. you dont really need torque unless you are goin to be towing something.. if the engine has adequate amount of torque, enough to move the car then thats all it really needs..

Honda engineered cars that way because of fuel economy. With their supercars, they can afford to be extravagant. Just like how the NSX's DOHC VTEC V6 cost a lot to build with exotic materials and a pretty high fuel consumption, they could have gone over the top with this new NSX.

[Shraka]

Honda engineered cars that way because of fuel economy. With their supercars, they can afford to be extravagant. Just like how the NSX's DOHC VTEC V6 cost a lot to build with exotic materials and a pretty high fuel consumption, they could have gone over the top with this new NSX.

Yeah, I allways wondered why they didn't go V8 for the old NSX. If you're spending that much money on an engine, surely it wouldn't cost that much to add two more cyls? *shrug* I guess with the old 206kw 'power limit' there wasn't much point? I dunno. :)

Perhaps Honda still has the mindset of 'economy supercars'? *Shrug*

[aaronng]

Yeah, I allways wondered why they didn't go V8 for the old NSX. If you're spending that much money on an engine, surely it wouldn't cost that much to add two more cyls? *shrug* I guess with the old 206kw 'power limit' there wasn't much point? I dunno. :)

Perhaps Honda still has the mindset of 'economy supercars'? *Shrug*
Back then, the competition were using V8 with low power outputs. NSX's V6 made similar power and torque with less 2-cylinders.

I'm not knocking that the engine is too small, but that Honda should try to beat the competition. Back in 1991 (is that right?) the NSX was pretty darn good. It was only down 18kW from the Ferrari 348TB! The 348 had a 3.4L V8, and their torque difference was only 39Nm! So the NSX was very comparable.

Now in 2006, the competition is not as easy. Also, the average price has risen from $240,000 in 1991 to $390,000-400,000 for an F430/Gallardo class sports car. I hope that the new NSX can compete with the competition. But one thing is for sure, If the original NSX was considered expensive, the new one will be almost unreachable for us...

[040501912]

Scary ... dun you guys reckon the front bit look like RX8 ? except with H symbol

[aaronng]

Scary ... dun you guys reckon the front bit look like RX8 ? except with H symbol
Not really. It's the lighting in the 2nd pic. I reckon it looks more like the Koenigssegg CCX.

[AusS2000]

One reason Honda went with a transverse V6 engine and drive train was that they already had one. It is essentially the same as that in the Accord only with VTEC and other tuning upgrades.

[fadz]

Hotness!!!

[Shraka]

As far as I know the NSX actualy started in 1990. :)

Wasn't there an old Honda Legend (or something) that came with an longitudinal Inline 6, that still drove the front wheels? They could have used that drivetrain. Although then they'd have to develop a V8 for it from scratch.

I don't think this looks like an RX8, thankfully.

Even if Toyota does bring out the LF-A, they still wont have economy sports cars, like Honda does (ie, the Type R / Type S range). I hope Toyota haven't given up, and do come back strong with something awesome like a new Supra or RWD Celica or something. :)

[AusS2000]

Wasn't there an old Honda Legend (or something) that came with an longitudinal Inline 6, that still drove the front wheels?

Was there? LOL

[aaronng]

One reason Honda went with a transverse V6 engine and drive train was that they already had one. It is essentially the same as that in the Accord only with VTEC and other tuning upgrades.

Uhh... no. The piston angle of the C30/32 is much wider than the J series. So It's a totally different engine.

[aaronng]

Wasn't there an old Honda Legend (or something) that came with an longitudinal Inline 6, that still drove the front wheels? They could have used that drivetrain. Although then they'd have to develop a V8 for it from scratch.


Yes, but I think it was a V6, not inline-6. Was quite surprised when I saw it. I asked the owner if his was a RWD Legend. LOL

[AusS2000]

Am I getting confused with the Legend? Didn't early Legends use the C30?

[marcus]

honda has proven that they are capable of producing power and torque out an engine..juz look at the b16 and b18 they produces lots of power and the K20A engine they use for the euro R and the dc5r produces quite alot of power and torque for a 2l NA car so the 4.5l will be something powerful for sure...dun think the japs will wan to lose to the west

[aaronng]

Am I getting confused with the Legend? Didn't early Legends use the C30?

1990 Legend used the C32A. The only similarity is the block. Nothing else is the same.

[AusS2000]

Now I'm confused. Your earlier post said Honda's existing V6 had a different 'piston angle'. I assumed you meant the angle of the V.

Now you're saying Honda had a similar block. The block defines the angle of the V, no?

Just found this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_C_engine

So to go back to my original statement it is correct if you replace the word 'Accord' with the word 'Legend':

One reason Honda went with a transverse V6 engine and drive train was that they already had one. It is essentially the same as that in the Legend only with VTEC and other tuning upgrades.

[aaronng]

Now I'm confused. Your earlier post said Honda's existing V6 had a different 'piston angle'. I assumed you meant the angle of the V.

Now you're saying Honda had a similar block. The block defines the angle of the V, no?

Just found this Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_C_engine

So to go back to my original statement it is correct if you replace the word 'Accord' with the word 'Legend':

One reason Honda went with a transverse V6 engine and drive train was that they already had one. It is essentially the same as that in the Legend only with VTEC and other tuning upgrades.
J and C series had different piston angles. That was with your Accord post because Accord had the J. So yeah, replace it with Legend and you got it right.

With the Legend, it also used the C engine. Between the Legend's C32 and NSX's C30, the only similarity was the block. Everything else was different, the crank, rods, pistons, liner material and head.

[AusS2000]

The point I was making was that Honda used a tranverse V6 and gearbox because they already had the basic castings and so tooling costs were minimised.

[aaronng]

The point I was making was that Honda used a tranverse V6 and gearbox because they already had the basic castings and so tooling costs were minimised.
The MT gearbox is different for sure (and the Legend came only in auto). The block and autobox, maybe. But I don't think it was because of tooling costs that they used a traverse V6. It was probably because they had experience in the V6 and not an inline-6/V8.

[AusS2000]

OK, whatever. But it can't be denied that a mid-transverse set up has a lot in common with a conventional FWD. A better example might be Toyota's SW11 MR2 perhaps.

[jenova]

The engine used in the NSX was the result of the turbo V6 1.5 used in F1 in the 80s that powered the Mclaren and Williams to their many F1 victories. Honda engineers increased the engine capacity and fine tuned it for road used, therefore the NSX engine was born.

[aaronng]

OK, whatever. But it can't be denied that a mid-transverse set up has a lot in common with a conventional FWD. A better example might be Toyota's SW11 MR2 perhaps.
Yup yup. :thumbsup:

I wonder what makes vehicle manufacturers decide between a mid-mounted transverse and longitudinal engine orientation. Old Ferraris used transverse but the new ones are longitudinal... is it because of symmetry?

[skinnyboy]

Were there any mid-mounted traverse V8 used in any car? Or a mid-mounted longitudinal V6?

The Lamboghini Miura was transverse as was the Ferrari Dino

http://next.web-cars.com/miura_img/miura_turin_4_s.jpg

http://www.autozine.org/Classiccar/Car_Photo/Ferrari/Dino_2.jpg

[AusS2000]

I've often wondered this myself. I think I read some reasoning in a recent article about the Miura but I can't remember what it was. I'll see if I can find it.

I confess to having a bit of a dream of building a mid engined CRX (teardrop shape) with a C32 drivetrain. In a similar vein to the Giacattolo.

[Shraka]

I can think of a few reasons you might not want a transverse mid mount:

Firsly, with Longitudional, you get more weight foward of the rear wheels, making the weight more central. Making it more of a MR rather than an RR.

You have more room for a longer block, which means you can use thicker spaces between bores, wider bores with less stroke, more room to work on the engine. The Dino used a 2.4 - 3.0ltr V6, and I imagine had a long stroke which would have made the block nice and short, and easy to fit between the rear wheels.

You can also fit bigger brakes and more complex suspension with a longitudional MR layout. The Dino had IRS (it'd kinda have to), but probably not double wishbone, which takes up a lot of room, from what I've seen.

More room for the gearbox and extra gears.

As for why you'd want a transverse MR, easier probably, and more room in the cabin etc.