NSX engine vs 3800 II
04-03-2003, 09:37 PM
#11
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by smellbird
The NSX has a 3.2L V6. It'* easy to tell what displacement a Honda has because the engine number is the same. ie:B18C is a 1.8L, H22A, is 2.2L....
04-04-2003, 11:52 AM
#12
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep you're right. I double checked. And it wasnt B32C it was C32B and that engine was only availabe to certain HONDA NSX, which was not available in North America, not the Acura. And none of Honda'* SUVs(if you can call them that) had that engine.
The only nice thing about the S2000 is the 50/50 weight distribution.
Why is it that all of the good Japanese cars are not available in the US, like the Skyline? Was it because of emissions? Is that why the Toyota Supra was pulled?
The only nice thing about the S2000 is the 50/50 weight distribution.
Why is it that all of the good Japanese cars are not available in the US, like the Skyline? Was it because of emissions? Is that why the Toyota Supra was pulled?
04-04-2003, 08:25 PM
#13
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: N.W. Indiana
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yea the emissions are more strict in the U.* than in Japan. But in Jpana I think they have to get new motors after 30,000 miles on them. Thats why the true JDM motors are pretty popular in imports. ou can get all the cars out there for cheap I think a Skyline GT-R34 only costs like 40 grand, but by the time you convert all the emissions and some other things itll cost you 80 grand.
04-05-2003, 05:34 PM
#14
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brewerton NY
Posts: 551
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the Lotus Esprit held the HP per Liter Title.
Configuration: Aluminum-alloy twin-turbocharged V8, 90 degree cylinder bank angle, single-plane crankshaft.
Bore: 83 mm
Stroke: 81mm
Capacity: 3506 cc
Power: 350 HP @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 295 lb ft @ 4250 rpm
Head Chamber Aluminum alloy, four-valve pent-roof combustion
Valvegear: Dual overhead camshafts with one toothed belt per bank, hydraulic tappets.
Inlet valves: 33.5 mm
Exhaust valves: 30.0 mm
Block: LM25TF aluminum alloy with cast iron "wet" lines, spheroidal graphite cast iron cross-bolted main bearing caps.
Turbochargers: Two Garrett T25 water-cooled, oil lubricated.
Fueling: One primary injector per cylinder, one secondary injector per bank.
Ignition: Four double-ended coils triggered from crankshaft sensor.
Ancillaries: Water pump, alternator, power steering pump, air conditioning compressor.
Weight: 485 lb with ancillaries
Jay
Configuration: Aluminum-alloy twin-turbocharged V8, 90 degree cylinder bank angle, single-plane crankshaft.
Bore: 83 mm
Stroke: 81mm
Capacity: 3506 cc
Power: 350 HP @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 295 lb ft @ 4250 rpm
Head Chamber Aluminum alloy, four-valve pent-roof combustion
Valvegear: Dual overhead camshafts with one toothed belt per bank, hydraulic tappets.
Inlet valves: 33.5 mm
Exhaust valves: 30.0 mm
Block: LM25TF aluminum alloy with cast iron "wet" lines, spheroidal graphite cast iron cross-bolted main bearing caps.
Turbochargers: Two Garrett T25 water-cooled, oil lubricated.
Fueling: One primary injector per cylinder, one secondary injector per bank.
Ignition: Four double-ended coils triggered from crankshaft sensor.
Ancillaries: Water pump, alternator, power steering pump, air conditioning compressor.
Weight: 485 lb with ancillaries
Jay
04-05-2003, 05:47 PM
#15
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by karfreek
I thought the Lotus Esprit held the HP per Liter Title.
Configuration: Aluminum-alloy twin-turbocharged V8, 90 degree cylinder bank angle, single-plane crankshaft.
Bore: 83 mm
Stroke: 81mm
Capacity: 3506 cc
Power: 350 HP @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 295 lb ft @ 4250 rpm
Head Chamber Aluminum alloy, four-valve pent-roof combustion
Valvegear: Dual overhead camshafts with one toothed belt per bank, hydraulic tappets.
Inlet valves: 33.5 mm
Exhaust valves: 30.0 mm
Block: LM25TF aluminum alloy with cast iron "wet" lines, spheroidal graphite cast iron cross-bolted main bearing caps.
Turbochargers: Two Garrett T25 water-cooled, oil lubricated.
Fueling: One primary injector per cylinder, one secondary injector per bank.
Ignition: Four double-ended coils triggered from crankshaft sensor.
Ancillaries: Water pump, alternator, power steering pump, air conditioning compressor.
Weight: 485 lb with ancillaries
Jay
Configuration: Aluminum-alloy twin-turbocharged V8, 90 degree cylinder bank angle, single-plane crankshaft.
Bore: 83 mm
Stroke: 81mm
Capacity: 3506 cc
Power: 350 HP @ 6500 rpm
Torque: 295 lb ft @ 4250 rpm
Head Chamber Aluminum alloy, four-valve pent-roof combustion
Valvegear: Dual overhead camshafts with one toothed belt per bank, hydraulic tappets.
Inlet valves: 33.5 mm
Exhaust valves: 30.0 mm
Block: LM25TF aluminum alloy with cast iron "wet" lines, spheroidal graphite cast iron cross-bolted main bearing caps.
Turbochargers: Two Garrett T25 water-cooled, oil lubricated.
Fueling: One primary injector per cylinder, one secondary injector per bank.
Ignition: Four double-ended coils triggered from crankshaft sensor.
Ancillaries: Water pump, alternator, power steering pump, air conditioning compressor.
Weight: 485 lb with ancillaries
Jay
Configuration: Torque DOHC Twin Turbo V6 with 4 Valves /Cylinder
Displacement: 3498 cc
Bore X Stroke: 94.0 mm X 84.0 mm
Compression Ratio: 8.3:1
Power: 542.0 bhp @ 7000 rpm
475.0 ft lbs @ 4500 rpm
That would make for 155 HP per liter
04-05-2003, 08:04 PM
#16
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
S2000 120hp per L Naturally Aspirated
Lotus 100hp per L Twin Turbo
Jag 155hp per L Twin Turbo
Beat 120hp per L without a tubo or blower. That'* why the S2000'* 4cyl is so impressive.
Lotus 100hp per L Twin Turbo
Jag 155hp per L Twin Turbo
Beat 120hp per L without a tubo or blower. That'* why the S2000'* 4cyl is so impressive.
04-05-2003, 08:24 PM
#17
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by jwikoff99
S2000 120hp per L Naturally Aspirated
Lotus 100hp per L Twin Turbo
Jag 155hp per L Twin Turbo
Beat 120hp per L without a tubo or blower. That'* why the S2000'* 4cyl is so impressive.
Lotus 100hp per L Twin Turbo
Jag 155hp per L Twin Turbo
Beat 120hp per L without a tubo or blower. That'* why the S2000'* 4cyl is so impressive.
04-05-2003, 11:57 PM
#19
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Northern KY
Posts: 511
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yes those 2 do not get it because they are not NA naturaly aspired meaning not turbo super charger nos. Also the engine has to be production
04-07-2003, 11:59 AM
#20
Senior Member
Posts like a Northstar
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: NSX engine vs 3800 II
[quote="Burgundy_Boat"]
He is right on the HP per L thing but who cares??? The NSX is an Exotic sports car while the bonnie is a Family car with balls, compare apples to apples, for example the NSX to the McLaren F1 (both mid-engined sports cars) who is gonna win now???
Well then compare apples to apples, comparing a Mclaren to an NSX is Rediculous. The McLaren is over a million to buy while the NSX is 80,00 and I believe the McLAren is a v-10 or V-12 while the NSX is a V-6. If you wanted to truly compare you the NSX you would to a Supra, Skyline or RX-7. Besides as a racing car NSX'* are not that great as the are mid engined and rear wheel drive so oversteer is always a problem.
Originally Posted by Phantom
A friend at work said that the NSX has the most effeciant hp out put per L. on a NA engine. I do not think that that is correct but i could not find any thing on it so I decided to ask of you all what you think.
The NSX http://www.acura.com/models/nsx_specs_results.asp
I figure that the out put for the engines would be
3.0 = 84hp per L
3.2 - 90.6hp per L.
Also What do you think the out put on the 3800 II would be with the same compression and higher RPMs
The NSX http://www.acura.com/models/nsx_specs_results.asp
I figure that the out put for the engines would be
3.0 = 84hp per L
3.2 - 90.6hp per L.
Also What do you think the out put on the 3800 II would be with the same compression and higher RPMs
Well then compare apples to apples, comparing a Mclaren to an NSX is Rediculous. The McLaren is over a million to buy while the NSX is 80,00 and I believe the McLAren is a v-10 or V-12 while the NSX is a V-6. If you wanted to truly compare you the NSX you would to a Supra, Skyline or RX-7. Besides as a racing car NSX'* are not that great as the are mid engined and rear wheel drive so oversteer is always a problem.
