[HotHonda]

BMW, Ferrari and Honda make the best N/A.
Nissan makes the best Turbo and Autos.
And Toyota is the best reliability and integrity.

 

[FF Drifter]

BTW, on your muscle car arguement, I KNOW a Camaro Z28 gets better gas mileage than a Legend. I had a Camaro Z28 (92) and it got 40% better MPG than my new at the time 97.5 Altima SE.

Oh sure I believe that. Even a Corvette can be more frugal than a second-gen KA. But I was referring more to my grandpa's Chevy Nova with a 350 small block, or those '67 Mustang hotrodders.

 

[FF Drifter]

BMW, Ferrari and Honda make the best N/A.
Nissan makes the best Turbo and Autos.
And Toyota is the best reliability and integrity.

I think BMW makes the best n/a. Honda is good, but they are more playing the numbers game by sacrificing torque (high-revving motors) in exchange for a good horsepower figure. BMW does a "true" power increase. And Ferrari... well they're exotics. What do you think?

Mazda makes killer n/a too. Ever seen their Miller cycle engines? And what about the rotary? Sure it's known for being turbo, but the revised 13B (RENESIS) makes 250hp too... and that's WITHOUT a turbo. *but take note... it has no torque. You need displacement for that*

Nissan has killer turbos, Mazda too. Autos though...? Ahh I look to Mercedes-Benz for smooth-slushboxes.

I can agree with you for that reliable Toyota thing though.

 

[SNEEK-E HONDA KA7]

Mazda makes killer n/a too. Ever seen their Miller cycle engines?

I thought Mazda's Miller Cycle was only applied to the Millenia S, which happens to employ a light pressure S/C.

 

[FF Drifter]

Sorry I just checked. You're right ~ miller cycles are dependent on superchargers. I stand corrected on that. I'm right about that RENESIS rotary though.

 

[SNEEK-E HONDA KA7]

Yeah, I think Mazda only had Miller Cycle technology in the Millenia S.

It is very interesting for sure.

 

[SNEEK-E HONDA KA7]

back to the subject, SOHC is actually beneficial for certain applications. The SOHC has less drivetrain drag than the DOHC designs, increasing low end torque (theoretically, of course new DOHC motors do just fine on low end). Also, SOHC is more compact. And, of course, a bit cheaper. DOHC was really not necessary before the days of VTEC or VVTi. I think it has really come into it's own now that engines regularly employ VTEC or VVTi technology. For comparison, the Maxima VG30DE ( for the first decade or so it was available) produced 63 HP per liter, and that is with variable valve timing. The Legend 3.2 makes about 63 HP per liter also in Type I form, and about 72 HP per liter in Type II form. And, besides VIS, the Legend motor is super simple.

So, don't feel bad that it is SOHC, for it's time, it was all good.

 

[FF Drifter]

VIS? What is that?

 

[SNEEK-E HONDA KA7]

VIS=Variable Intake System

 

[FF Drifter]

I see. Well I still wouldn't say the Legend motor is simple. I switched over from Nissan's almighty SR20DE *1992 Infiniti G20* over to the Legend's C32A1, and there's PLENTY of complication, I think:

For starters, I noticed there is no distributor. How are we supposed to advance timing? And are the coil packs really reliable and last a long time? I'd hate to think of replacing one...

Also, what's up with all the engine covers? Man I can't even mess with the throttle and rev the engine from under the hood. I really miss that

But most of all: the engine is longitudinal. Trippy. In a front-wheel drive? When I looked under the car, I was still tripped out. It's like an AWD setup...but not. It looked more like the underside of a Skyline than the underside of a Honda FWD.

Anyways though, I love my Legend now. So hahaha never mind...

 

[HotHonda]

I agree. Our engines are one of the most unique and complicated for their time! It was a real experimental layout design I think. Whenever I mention or show this engine to a mechanic - they crap their pants at the thought of doing internal work on it!

 

[FF Drifter]

I heard the Legend was supposed to be AWD originally, hence the longitudinal engine layout, but Honda never went through with it (cost maybe?). Even when the 3rd gen Legend/RL was released, Honda still didnt' finish what they started.

Oh well, what we do get in return is an improved weight balance since the engine and tranny are now further back in the car. That's something the Legend will always have over the TL/CL.

 

[B+O]

That's exactly it. While Mercedes uses superchargers and Audi uses turbos, BMW remains true to natural aspiration. Mercedes and Audi (as well as many other commpanies) often rely on forced induction to power their highest performing machines ~ but BMW still remains competitive with their naturally aspirated motors.

Think about that: while it's easy to slap on a turbo and get big power, BMW instead dives into further engineering, tweaking their engines for all they've got, applying new technology and engineering each detail to its fullest. Double VANOS, Valvetronic, etc. are all results. Every little thing has to be designed to fully extract the potential of the motor. With forced induction; you can have a ****ty design and still make that kind of power. You can have flaws and mistakes and offset it with a supercharger, or hide your engineering downfalls with a turbo. BMW still stands strong with natural aspiration... doing it right... the hard way.

Turbo is great, but there are plenty of downfalls. Power delivery is uneven, intercoolers and extra piping is heavy and bothersome, extra oil lines and fuel-mapping is annoying, and throttle response and control overall are lost.

Superchargers are much the same way... powerbands in supercharged cars are notoriously peaky, the throttle response suffers also, and like a turbo, full control of the car is lost. With forced induction, you hand over control over power to weather conditions, ie humidity and ambient temperature.

Although such factors play into naturally aspirated performance as well, think of how much more an n/a engine is "free" of outside conditions since it doesn't have to deal with lower compression, intercoolers, uneven boost, or differing air pressures.

Man I can go on and on ~ but just put it this way: when you pull on a car that's blowing off, when you overtake a car with the telltale supercharger whine, when you pass up a turboed whatever, and you are still naturally aspirated, then what does that say about how your car is built? It's the respect.

i feel you on the respect part as it is a way of saying this is done with ambient air pressure but when you say that N/A is not as susceptiple to abient fluctuations is wholy unture. im NOT trying to argue which is better as both have their trade offs and both have their distinct advantages.

like you said the Naturally Aspirated engines are so much better at throttle control (given the throttle "map" on a car equiped with DBW is not slow anyways) that it makes it hard to compare. and i feel you on the Double VANOS and the ValveTronic and the like. but the S54 is purpose built as a production Naturally aspirated engine, when you try to up the power of said engines their lowend normally leaves much to be desired. With the C32A it is difficult to get the low-end torque (even same as stock) with natural aspiration. when you say outside conditions you are forgetting altitude, barometric pressure, and many more natural occurances, with forced induction the cars are "free" from those as its air, hot cold what ever, is still the same pressure still the same density.

now the S54 is an amazing engine by any stand point and its one of my favorite, by engineering views, engines to think about, Save for the N62:bowdown: and the upcomming N~ 12 cylinder. But to tell me it wont be affected by ambient fluctuations is kind of..iffy. BMW does make some very awesome Naturally aspirated engines but, they have made Turbocharged engines and were one of the reasons Turbocharging is banned in F1...1500hp from a 1.5 liter engine for which the M10 engine is based. Now, to me, being able to squeeze the most from an engine is impressive.

the most this engine would beable to produce Nturally aspirated is somewhere aroun 300hp. 5 times the out put is nothing to scoff at.

now on the drivability issues like i said earlier the throttle response is amazing becuase there is no spool time, as you stated earlier. but now when you start thinking of all the technical advances made in Natural Aspiration engineering you start to loose what new innovations are being made in forced induction. New aerodynamics of the turbine wheels aiding in quicker spool for larger turbos, and the instant spool of the K03 turbo from Kunle Kopps & Kosch (KKK) you start to loose the ideal that instant trottle response is soley in favor of the Naturally aspirated engine. now even more so you for got the not-so-new technology comming to the street and such, the Variable Geometry Turbine (VGT), or Variable Nozzle Turbine(VNT). these are turbos that have spooling characteristics of the said K03 but with the ability to produce high rpm flow equal to that of a T04(garrett scale). so there goes the small turbo over speeding and destroying its self. Lag? many Rally cars use an Anti lag system for off throttle performances, like braking for a drift and the such. these will cause the engine to manipulate its timming to accomodate the lack of exhaust gas energy to drive a larger turbo. Thus also lowering, even further, the claim of drivability. i guess you can tell im a turbo freak

On the supercharger thing, you are TOTALLY RIGHT...about Centrifugal superchargers. they do require you to run the engine out to get power but these superchargers weren't designed, intentionally, for cars and are STILL not suitable for most cars on the road. i truely dont like Centrifugal superchargers but they do produce horsepower in a "Naturally Aspirated" style. Running an engine up to its higher points for power. But when generalizing superchargers you generalize Way too much, as you forgot to explain the Roots type supercharger to which superchargers get most of their fame. These superchargers are excellent and provide much more power from down low than any Naturally Aspirated engine of the same type and displacement could ever hope to reach and still have the respectable highend power a carlike that should. But Roots have a one major draw back, their overspinning tendencies. They tend to put out max boost VERY early (somewhere around 1500 and 2000rpm over 5000 rpm the supercharger starts over heating the air as it is not being compressed inside fo the body of the super charger, rather its being compressed in the intake manifold. this style was not originally designed for cars either asone of its first and popular application was mine shaft ventilation. since it just moves air around it's body. Now the sleeper of the whole Forced induction area is the Lysholm or Twin Screw, or Whipple (brand name) supercharger. This little thing is amazing as it combines the effect of Roots supercharging with the ability to run high boost and not over heat the air, running with an efficiency around 68-72%. The Lysholm type supercharger compresses the air inside of its body and produces positive boost very low in the RPM range about the same or slightly more than a roots type supercharger. this means you can have a small engine whith a HUGE torque curve and very high horsepwer but save on gas. with Naturally aspirated performance you are stuck with that power all the time and it hurts Gas mileage tremendously. Superchargers can be decoupled and will cause no parasitic drag when it is not needed.

I like natural aspiration of course, but when TUNING small engines, its not the way to go.

and the 400hp either way from a legend. yes you may spend more money TUNING a Legend to 400hp in Natrually aspirated form but that car will be totally undriveable on the street. when supercharging or turbo charging you can have 400 hp very well spaced out. there is a reason it is still around, and manufacturers are going back to it. mainly for gas economy and useable powerbands.

sorry for writting an essay. if you read it, thanks for reading.

 

[Legend O Power]

good essay Bang&Olufsen!

this should be standerd reading

 

[LegendC]

I heard the Legend was supposed to be AWD originally, hence the longitudinal engine layout, but Honda never went through with it (cost maybe?). Even when the 3rd gen Legend/RL was released, Honda still didnt' finish what they started.

Oh well, what we do get in return is an improved weight balance since the engine and tranny are now further back in the car. That's something the Legend will always have over the TL/CL.

I don't think there was a AWD plan for the Legend....only now are they speculating putting AWD in the new TL. 230hp does not cause enough torque steer, but the 260 (current Type S) and 270+ speculated in the new TL would be at the virge of whats comfortable in FWD. Besides the late 90's CRV was the first Honda in the states to use the VTM-4 system now in the MDX, Pilot, CRV and possibly the Accord platform (Euro accord, TSX, or new TL)

They did it for two reasons, weight distribution as you mentioned above, and for styling. The weight distribution is awesome, most of the motor is over the front wheels...displaced slightly back...and this is teriffic for traction. The tranny extends all the way into the cabin, keeping that component's weight central. The new Caddy XLR takes this a step further with the tranny over the rear wheels. Notice that the Legend has a much much shorter fron overhang than the new Acuras? Its almost Bimmeresque with that short muscular overhang. Having the motor in that position allows you to move the front wheels up and to the corners which helps give the car its agressive stance and better turning radius.

 

[Dave C ver2.0]

The new Caddy XLR takes this a step further with the tranny over the rear wheels.

Not over the rear wheels, between and it's called a transaxle just like FWD counterparts.

It's really old technology, the Ferrari 275 GTB and Daytona had one, Porshce 944 had one also.

 

[FF Drifter]

with forced induction the cars are "free" from those as its air, hot cold what ever, is still the same pressure still the same density.

I would have to disagree with that because the intercooler still plays a big factor. Having an intercooler just adds one more thing for the intake charge to go through... one more variable to deal with. The pressure/density of the intake charge may be the same but what about the temperature? If you're in the desert or struggling up a mountain, it'll be either the intercooler (intake charge) or the suffering radiator that'll bring up issues.

Now, to me, being able to squeeze the most from an engine is impressive. ..... 5 times the out put is nothing to scoff at.

I'll have to agree with you on this, but this kinda goes back to the argument between silly amounts of power and driveability/control. With forced induction, you get the power, but you lose the control. With natural aspiration, you might not put out 1000hp/liter, but you lose the driveability and control that a driver still needs.

but now when you start thinking of all the technical advances made in Natural Aspiration engineering you start to loose what new innovations are being made in forced induction.

I will not argue with you on this either. I know there are some pretty crazy things out there for turbos and supercharger design has come a long way from centrifugal blowers and what not. Roots-type blowers are great too, but as with any type of forced -induction, there are weak points in the power band ~ either way up top, or down on low-RPM torque, or whatever. Any forced induction will have those sorts of "gaps" in power. Although I see FI as really stretching out a car's powerband, it also isn't as smooth as can be derived from a n/a engine. Not bombing on forced incution or anything... I personally see great potential in the "disco potato" turbo that is now making the rounds on the street in SR20DETs. Hey, I love turbos too, but there is something about n/a that still appeals to me.

I like natural aspiration of course, but when TUNING small engines, its not the way to go.

Yeah what's that statement...? no replacment for displacement.

im NOT trying to argue which is better as both have their trade offs and both have their distinct advantages.

:

Amen. :werd:

 

[SpeedDemon]

Also, what's up with all the engine covers? Man I can't even mess with the throttle and rev the engine from under the hood. I really miss that

You can still rev the engine from under the hood. Right next the the throttle body, reach down and at the bottom of that cover on the right ther is a little thing you can pull.

 

[Stu]

the knowledge of many of the members is really fantastic. I really enjoy the insight into the car you guys have.

Its been a pleasure to read this and other thread like it. Its the best part of this forum for me !!!!

Thanks guys !

 

[ThaAcStangSwerver]

Not over the rear wheels, between and it's called a transaxle just like FWD counterparts.

It's really old technology, the Ferrari 275 GTB and Daytona had one, Porshce 944 had one also.

The current Corvette also uses this layout. The XLR and Vette is identical underneath.

the knowledge of many of the members is really fantastic. I really enjoy the insight into the car you guys have.

:werd: