new NSX

[Engin09]

tail lights and colour look shit, that's my input.

[9large]

IMO the new nsx will be a v6 with twin hybrid motors running the front wheels.

So you're expecting Honda to produce a $180K hybrid front wheel drive?

While im at it, hondas v6 technology in their early model nsx's despite how "dinosour" their tech is, still gives a 911 a run for its money, and we're comparing a 20y/o car with a new porche here... If the new v6 is tuned as well as the s2ks then your looking at 280kw 3.2lt with 600+ nm. Which is something for a honda. Add vtec onto that and what more could you want?
Keeping to my above opinion, that would place the new base model nsx at 120k to 140k. Maybe even with a v8 option available.

Most companies have variable valve technology these days - it's been around for several decades. I think it can also be a little misunderstood - its purpose isn't to magically add power to a car, but (in basic terms) to allow the requirements of both frugal- and performance-oriented characteristics to exist in the same engine.

Having a hard time typing while finding posts from other pages, i just thaught id point out; even tho honda doesnt produce turbo road cars as far as my limited knowledge goes, i do believe during alot of their older races, they placed every race, and came first EVERY TIME they used a single turbo. Im trying to remember where i read that... Perhaps ealry 2000's lemans or grandprix and prior

Not sure where you got that impression. Relatively speaking, Honda haven't used many turbo cars in competition. Honda did enter a turbo-powered NSX in the GT1 class in the mid-90s, in an attempt to compete against the McLaren F1, but that DNF. Honda were, however, very successful with their turbo engines in their second era of Formula 1.

[Fredoops]

So you're expecting Honda to produce a $180K hybrid front wheel drive?

He's probably saying petrol drives rear and electric drives front.

Most companies have variable valve technology these days - it's been around for several decades. I think it can also be a little misunderstood - its purpose isn't to magically add power to a car, but (in basic terms) to allow the requirements of both frugal- and performance-oriented characteristics to exist in the same engine.

It's funny isnt it, VTEC is just VVT.... yet people think it's so special, several companies has better VVT systems, Variocam Plus (porsche) Vanos (BMW), just to name a few, and then theres Fiat's Multi-air (wow...)

Interesting fact, Porsche had been using Variocam since 1992

I doubt Honda is going to tune a V6, the emissions will kill that plan. See the new Type-R with Turbo? thats partly because the N/A engine will not meet emission standards.

Not sure where you got that impression. Relatively speaking, Honda haven't used many turbo cars in competition. Honda did enter a turbo-powered NSX in the GT1 class in the mid-90s, in an attempt to compete against the McLaren F1, but that DNF. Honda were, however, very successful with their turbo engines in their second era of Formula 1.

Agreed, just because honda races doesnt mean they built every single engine themselves....

No do they build every single chassis.... The only Honda part of the current Honda Le Mans race cars (LMP2 class) are the engine. The Chassis are from LOLA (UK) and Courage Competition (France)

Having said that, Honda Racing development did develop a Turbo V6 last year based on the Accord Block, but then Honda pulled out of LMP2 this year due to the natural diaster i think.

[9large]

My point was, Honda didn't "came first EVERY TIME they used a single turbo.", as the original poster suggested.

[9large]

Interesting fact, Porsche had been using Variocam since 1992

Another interesting fact: Honda first introduced VTEC in the B16A in 1989 but used a form of variable valve timing on one of their CBRs in 1983.

It's funny isnt it, VTEC is just VVT.... yet people think it's so special, several companies has better VVT systems, Variocam Plus (porsche) Vanos (BMW), just to name a few, and then theres Fiat's Multi-air (wow...)

Out of curiosity, care to share how the other systems work and how much better they are than VTEC?

[pure_na]

It's funny isnt it, VTEC is just VVT.... yet people think it's so special, several companies has better VVT systems, Variocam Plus (porsche) Vanos (BMW), just to name a few, and then theres Fiat's Multi-air (wow...)

Interesting fact, Porsche had been using Variocam since 1992

is vanos better than vtec? i typed in vanos, and the first results i got had to do with vanos repairs. my admitedly limited knowledge on vanos consists of the fact that it fails...a lot...

[Fredoops]

Out of curiosity, care to share how the other systems work and how much better they are than VTEC?

Vtec we usually speak of has 2 valve lift settings, high or low.

Valvetronic/Vanos from BMW has infinite settings, making it a continuously variable valve lift, and it manage to do without throttle butterfly, Valvetronic can control camshaft timing for intake and exhaust valves' overlap while VTEC can only control the intake valves' camshaft timing. Valvetronic it's supposed to be more fuel efficient (approx 10%, given same output), Honda's Advanced-VTEC was supposed to be a simplified version of Valvetronic/Double Vanos... till they out that in the bin.


Multi-air..... It's the newest kid on the block... and kind of a trump card. It is the only system which can independentlychange the valve timing and profile of the valves cylinder by cylinder and stroke by stroke.
IE: so it's like having a Valvetronic/VTEC system optimized PER CYLINDER, not one system per engine. This eliminated pumping losses. We're talking about something like 10-15% increase in power and torque (especially at Lower-RPM situations) with a 10% reduction in fuel consumption.

Also, multi-air has the capability of having different settings as according to ECU, so you can have different multi-air profiles (Economy/performance etc)

So in terms of optimized burn stroke by stroke: Multi-Air >> Valvetronic/Double Vanos > VTEC
Efficiency wise it's like comparing a four speed auto (VTEC) to a six speed auto (Vanos/Valvetronic) to a Seven speed DSG (Multiair)

Only fitting for Fiat to bring out the next generation since they were the first to patent a functional VVT system back in the 1960's

is vanos better than vtec? i typed in vanos, and the first results i got had to do with vanos repairs. my admitedly limited knowledge on vanos consists of the fact that it fails...a lot...

Try "Valvetronic double vanos"
Problem with Valvetronic/Vanos is that it's really bulky and heavy and rather complex. hence the failure rates in earlier models.
And it doesnt help when dealers blame Vanos when it's the piston spring that failed.......
Advanced VTEC was supposed to be the Honda's answer to valvetronic/vanos, it does essentially the same function, while being lighter and less complex...

[9large]

Vtec we usually speak of has 2 valve lift settings, high or low.

The VTEC you speak of is the old first generation VTEC not seen in a new Honda IIRC since the 90s. Heard of iVTEC?

My original point was that VTEC - or any form of road-going variable valve timing for that matter - was often misunderstood, and was designed to balance the requirements of a practical "street" engine with a performance engine, and not that VTEC was a basic, primitive, or out-classed interpretation of the technology (apparently your point), which it is not.

[aaronng]

The VTEC you speak of is the old first generation VTEC not seen in a new Honda IIRC since the 90s. Heard of iVTEC?

iVTEC still has only two profiles for valve lift. The only improvement it brings to VTEC is infinitely variable valve timing/phasing for the intake cam.

[Fredoops]

iVTEC still has only two profiles for valve lift. The only improvement it brings to VTEC is infinitely variable valve timing/phasing for the intake cam.

I was about to say.... i-VTEC still has distinctive high and low RPM valve timing and duration profiles. But even the intake cam lift is limited to 25 degrees, a far cry from Double VANOS which can allow up to a 40 degress lift.

The VTEC you speak of is the old first generation VTEC not seen in a new Honda IIRC since the 90s. Heard of iVTEC?

My original point was that VTEC - or any form of road-going variable valve timing for that matter - was often misunderstood, and was designed to balance the requirements of a practical "street" engine with a performance engine, and not that VTEC was a basic, primitive, or out-classed interpretation of the technology (apparently your point), which it is not.

If i-VTEC matches what the Valvetronic/Vanos do then why would Honda develop Advanced-VTEC to do what Valvetronic/Vanos do?

Anyway, VTEC is not primitive or basic (compared to say..... No VVT at all.....), but it is outclassed in terms of technology content and efficiency, especially compared to Fiat's Multi-Air system.

VVT is about optimizing internal combustion to service a defined purpose, what ever that purpose maybe. But I agree, it's mostly for livability, economy and emission reasons

But I do get your point about people's misunderstandings about VVT being the "mechanical nitrous"

[9large]

iVTEC still has only two profiles for valve lift. The only improvement it brings to VTEC is infinitely variable valve timing/phasing for the intake cam.

I was about to say.... i-VTEC still has distinctive high and low RPM valve timing and duration profiles.

This is true. What a brain fart. My bad.

But even the intake cam lift is limited to 25 degrees, a far cry from Double VANOS which can allow up to a 40 degress lift.

It's not limited to 25 degrees - it can go to 50 degrees.

Anyway, enough of this VVT talk. Back to topic.

[AusS2000]

the vtec you speak of is the old first generation vtec not seen in a new honda iirc since the 90s.

f20c?