Originally posted by jaje
n/a forms...what engine does nissan have that compares to an f20c?...sr20ve but it only makes 200hp. The first 3.0 nsx engine of 270hp?...only the vq 3.5 liter makes near or over 270hp...as for the sr16ve n1...it was a street ready race engine sold in limited numbers to be raced in the n1 class...it's idle was at least ~1,500 rpms meaning it was tuned for all out power...however, you could buy a spoon civic ctr in japan with a 210hp 1.6 that was tuned for n1 racing too...however b/c both were tuned to make so much hp it makes little power at lower rpms...i wish i had a dyno of these two engines side by side to show torque curves...both are impressive
I think you kinda answered yourself later on in your argument. Nissan's strength is in turbo engine and Honda's strength is in NA engine. Both chose different route but tries to achieve the same goal. So therefore your question about what's nissan's answer to the f20c? it's the SR20DET. Also, don't forget about the SR20VET. that's variable valve timing, lift and also a Turbo. I'm not even going to delve into the comparison of the Spoon CTR vs the SR16ve N1 because I don't know much about either one to make any good comments.
turbos and other forced induction...aren't avail from factory hondas anymore so it's not fair to compare a honda engine with an aftermarket unit (tuned for more power than a factory turbo would)...that's why i separated out to not discuss forced inducted models
turbos and f/i aren'ts available from the factory hondas but VTEC was. They chose VTEC over f/i. Both has strength and weaknesses. What is not fair about that? Honda spends $$ in improving N/A while Nissan spends $$ improving F/I. Nissan could cry about the same unfairness in the N/A segment... "not fair because Honda has VTEC and we don't"
...the total number of warranty claims on a failed vtec system = 0 (astonishing reliabilty record)...turbos add more complexity which means more engine problems in the long run (it is also harder on the engine in boost transition)
I don't know about the exact warranty claims on all the cars but I know the Supra built the Engine pretty strong so I doubt there were that many complaint about the engine. I don't know if you ever had a car w/ VTEC before but alot of GS-R owner complains about oil burning. Alot of time due to bad rings. Constantly revving your car to 8k will kill your piston rings and your gas millage, no doubt. The amount of complexity of add a turbo is probably alot less than adding stuff like VTEC. Turbo put extra stress on the engine, I'm not arguing about that, but if the engine was built from the factory for turbo, then that extra stress shouldn't matter as much. Just like high revving put extra stress on the engine. But if the engine was design and built to rev to 9k, then it shouldn't matter as much. If you take the S2000 and turbo it, of course it won't be too good for the engine, because it was built and design for N/A (high compression, high revving, etc). Same apply w/ an engine that was built for turbo, if you increase compression and raise the redline, it won't be too good for it because it wasn't built for that. So what's your point about complexity? Stress or warrantee? I don't think Toyota would have the image of most reliable car company if the turbo supra isn't reliable.
i'm not dogging on turbos either...i'm helping a shop build a t3 for my 2.0 protege5...n/a improvement is pretty weak due to no avail variable valve timing or etc to make a revvy daily driver
Good for you. I always like the p5, and w/ msp parts, you should have little problem building a good turbo p5. if anything, you can always buy a msp engine and just plop it in there.
nsx is lighter it's frame, engine block and head, and body are all aluminium (one of the first cars to sport all this lightweight material), it is a mr layout which means less drivetrain loss of power and lower weight along with better weight distribution...where the rb26dett r34 gt-r is a front engine awd layout, iron block/alloy head, plus all the weight from the twin turbos, piping and intercoolers, etc. adds up to a lot of extra weight
I agree that turbo add extra weight, no doubt. But the HP you'll gain off it will compensate.
my point is nissans overall strength is in turbo engines where hondas is in n/a forms...where nissan usually doesn't have a turbo model for its lineup it usually uses extra displacement...such as the 3.5 in the altima, or the k2.5 in the sentra
You've just help me explained my point. Like I said before, there's only so much you can do before you need to either increase the size of the engine, add a turbo, or add variable valve timing and lift. All three achieve more power the same way, add more air and gas = bigger combustion = more HP.
and i agree that nissan may have a public perception as a more sporty car maker but in reality honda was one of the few companies bred on racing (very elite category such as porsche, bmw, ferrari, lotus)...though honda never really drove that fact home over its 50 years of existence and became too successful selling docile commuter vehicles
You make it sound like Honda is the only car company that has a racing history. They're not in racing lately because of $$ problem and we all know that, but Nissan has a pretty robust history of racing as well. I agree that Honda has a very successful racing history. But you gotta see that alot of the company bring new technology to the racing first, then slowly bring it into their production car. Just like Honda bringing VTEC from racing into their production cars, Nissan is bringing their turbo engine design expertise from their racing into their production cars. This can be said about alot of the companies.