Why does Honda not use turbo??

[SHIFTY]

umm peugeot created a version of vvti before bmw created vanos (vvti for bmw) or before basicly any1....

honda just perfected it...

[gReY-oNe]

Every other manufacturer is using it now. Why is Honda so stubborn on this. Are they just going to keep putting out na 4 cylinder cars all our lives?

it had to be said

ITS BECAUSE YOU TOUCH YOURSELF AT NIGHT

[DLO01]

Every other manufacturer is using it now. Why is Honda so stubborn on this. Are they just going to keep putting out na 4 cylinder cars all our lives?

Its because turbo is the easy way out. Bolt on a turbo and instant power.

Honda is about getting out of a NA engine that people would have never dreamed of.

[IAMVTEC]

Its because turbo is the easy way out. Bolt on a turbo and instant power.

Honda is about getting out of a NA engine that people would have never dreamed of.

Why not take the easy way out? Especially when the end result isnt any better, I know turbos wouldnt be refined. But neither is VTEC, you still need to rev the engine crazy to get optimal power.

[d15z1SUX]

no turbo. less parts. less things to break. behaves like a pedestrian car with normal driving. good fuel economy. when u drop a gear or two you get good top end performance.

[040501912]

no turbo. less parts. less things to break. behaves like a pedestrian car with normal driving. good fuel economy. when u drop a gear or two you get good top end performance.

my car is street friendly
Fuel economy is fine, * just dun rev to hard LOL
i got 410-430 of a tank about 55 L every time i fill up
Foot down .. by 350 all gone!!

Drop gear.. got instant boost.. who can resist that? and vtec is on too.

Turbo Vtec yoow! ROFL

[STTICH]

there was one honda.

the 80s top range honda city came standard wth turbo ;p

[zco]

what is wrong with "na 4cylinders" ?? yeh. fair enuf they dont output as much power as other manufacturers. but theres more to a car than power output

the market that arent "car enthusiasts" dont really give a shit whether its turbo or not. as long as its got the power they need, for their requirements, or aesthetically appealing, or maybe that just want a reliable car or so forth, then consumers are going to buy.. just because they dont have turbo's in their car doesnt mean they're "falling behind" on technology
company's all develop cars to a diff marketshare.. the majority of company's develop all diff cars for diff segments of the market, having advantages or preference in some segment over the other.

[Klayemore]

NA all the way!

I agree with Honda being ahead of the times - why should they change to turbo when they're masters at what they do now?

No other company has built NA engines as highly tuned for street use. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[xenfacta]

not just about power....its just a different philosophy... like asking why subaru and porsche use boxer engines...its wat makes the curretn market interesting coz theres a range of different things to choose from.

its also overall balance.. the linearity of na power delivery is something that the turbo guys have been trying to achieve for ages instead of lagging then providing a massive chunk of power that can be unsettling for the chassis esp. mid corner

[rtsnoz]

I'm suprised nobody has pointed out the market of honda. Honda aren't trying to sell to people who want super-performance vehicles. These people couldn't give a crap if it has a turbo, 100bhp or 300bhp.

[steve88]

then why would they make the NSX NA? thats not exactly a granny mobile. i think honda probably wanted too stand out with the NA cars, and that it leaves a market open wider than paris hiltons legs on a saturday night for people too mod the **** out of them.

i personally admire how cars like the nsx and some preludes/integras can really keep up with skylines, s15's etc.

plus wouldnt the NA mean the internals don't have too be as strong? (ie. forged pistons etc)