Honda Releases New Turbo Engines
11-19-2013, 09:18 AM
#11
The way I understand it is that modern turbocharging systems effectively make the engine act like it has variable displacement. At low load is has the efficiency of a non-turbocharged engine while at high load it has the power (and lower fuel economy) of a higher displacement n/a engine.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
I understand how/what a turbocharger does, but I'm strictly referring to emissions reqs. I've heard people say "the s2k wouldn't pass emissions standards today." I want to know why? Pushrod v8's still pass emissions fine (although perhaps there are loopholes for domestic car mfrs)..? I understand some cars like wenkel rotaries perhaps can't pass emissions today because they were notoriously inefficient and ran rich, but am wondering why we can't have a modern K-series engine stuffed into an s2k type chassis from Honda. I see honda is sticking the cats in many cars practically right after the exhaust ports on the head, perhaps it's the result of stricter emissions? Are high output vtec engines relatively worse in terms of emissions compared to NA engines with less aggressive cams that have less overlap/lift?
11-19-2013, 09:33 AM
#12
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by deepbluejh' timestamp='1384880779' post='22884321
The way I understand it is that modern turbocharging systems effectively make the engine act like it has variable displacement. At low load is has the efficiency of a non-turbocharged engine while at high load it has the power (and lower fuel economy) of a higher displacement n/a engine.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
I understand how/what a turbocharger does, but I'm strictly referring to emissions reqs. I've heard people say "the s2k wouldn't pass emissions standards today." I want to know why? Pushrod v8's still pass emissions fine (although perhaps there are loopholes for domestic car mfrs)..? I understand some cars like wenkel rotaries perhaps can't pass emissions today because they were notoriously inefficient and ran rich, but am wondering why we can't have a modern K-series engine stuffed into an s2k type chassis from Honda. I see honda is sticking the cats in many cars practically right after the exhaust ports on the head, perhaps it's the result of stricter emissions? Are high output vtec engines relatively worse in terms of emissions compared to NA engines with less aggressive cams that have less overlap/lift?
11-19-2013, 09:35 AM
#13
Registered User
Originally Posted by deepbluejh' timestamp='1384880779' post='22884321
The way I understand it is that modern turbocharging systems effectively make the engine act like it has variable displacement. At low load is has the efficiency of a non-turbocharged engine while at high load it has the power (and lower fuel economy) of a higher displacement n/a engine.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
So... comparing 2 theoretical engines that both make 275HP (a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and a n/a 3.5L V6), the 2.0L turbo is going to have better cruising fuel economy while still offering you the power of larger displacement when you put your foot down. Given that most people operate their cars in low-load conditions most of the time, this is going to result in better all-around fuel economy for most people.
I understand how/what a turbocharger does, but I'm strictly referring to emissions reqs. I've heard people say "the s2k wouldn't pass emissions standards today." I want to know why? Pushrod v8's still pass emissions fine (although perhaps there are loopholes for domestic car mfrs)..? I understand some cars like wenkel rotaries perhaps can't pass emissions today because they were notoriously inefficient and ran rich, but am wondering why we can't have a modern K-series engine stuffed into an s2k type chassis from Honda. I see honda is sticking the cats in many cars practically right after the exhaust ports on the head, perhaps it's the result of stricter emissions? Are high output vtec engines relatively worse in terms of emissions compared to NA engines with less aggressive cams that have less overlap/lift?
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
11-19-2013, 09:43 AM
#14
It could be that the combustion process is less accurate and starts to fall apart at very high rpms.... meaning there are more noxious byproducts at 8000 rpm than there are at 5000 rpm.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
It probably is partly to do as well with your second point. I remember hearing about how the EPA emission reqs are about as clear and concise as the US tax code. I know domestic mfrs have gotten around certain reqs thanks to loopholes with them listing cars as "light trucks" or something along those lines..
11-19-2013, 10:03 AM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by deepbluejh' timestamp='1384886127' post='22884504
It could be that the combustion process is less accurate and starts to fall apart at very high rpms.... meaning there are more noxious byproducts at 8000 rpm than there are at 5000 rpm.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
It probably is partly to do as well with your second point. I remember hearing about how the EPA emission reqs are about as clear and concise as the US tax code. I know domestic mfrs have gotten around certain reqs thanks to loopholes with them listing cars as "light trucks" or something along those lines..
11-19-2013, 10:16 AM
#17
Originally Posted by SlowTeg' timestamp='1384886623' post='22884521
[quote name='deepbluejh' timestamp='1384886127' post='22884504']
It could be that the combustion process is less accurate and starts to fall apart at very high rpms.... meaning there are more noxious byproducts at 8000 rpm than there are at 5000 rpm.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
It could be that the combustion process is less accurate and starts to fall apart at very high rpms.... meaning there are more noxious byproducts at 8000 rpm than there are at 5000 rpm.
That said... surely the Ferrari 458 Italia puts out more exhaust "bad stuff" at full song than the S2000 did 10 years ago... yet for some reason it has no problem passing emissions while an S2000-like motor wouldn't? I suspect the real reason lies in the politics and wording of emissions regulations.
It probably is partly to do as well with your second point. I remember hearing about how the EPA emission reqs are about as clear and concise as the US tax code. I know domestic mfrs have gotten around certain reqs thanks to loopholes with them listing cars as "light trucks" or something along those lines..
[/quote]
It might be because half of what you said is wrong or at least overstated.
11-19-2013, 10:23 AM
#18
I didn't respond because your post didn't make much sense. You can easily measure the A/F ratio of ANY engine, boosted or NA. And yes, at very low load the turbo does nothing, and yes, the intake manifold is under vacuum not pressure.
11-19-2013, 11:03 AM
#19
I don't believe the EPA is testing WOT for standards. So I think a turbo allows steady state speed outputs to remain low while offering huge power increases under boost. Thus getting the best of both.
11-19-2013, 11:13 AM
#20
Dear Honda,
SPORTS CAR!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Vader1
PS....SPORTS CAR!
SPORTS CAR!!!!!!
Sincerely,
Vader1
PS....SPORTS CAR!