18k rpm
07-27-2010 | 05:54 AM
#12
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,833
Likes: 11
Originally Posted by ginaprincess,Jul 27 2010, 08:27 AM
This is more of a curiosity type of question and nothing more. I guess the question I'm going to ask is more for the tech savvy of this forum, but here it is
- Why Honda did not build an S2k revving 18k rpm?
Sounds like a weird question? Impossible for a 4 cyl to rev 8k rpm you say?
Well, look at it this way; F1 cars can rev 18k rpm. I know they are 10 cyl engines, but does it matters in terms of reliability issue revving 10 cyl at 18k rpm vs. a 4 cyl engine to rev that high?
I don't see the difference, honestly. If a cylinder rev 18k times per minute, does it matter that 10 cyl do it at the same time vs. 4 cyl? I'm speaking just for reliability issue here, since most of you probably will say: THE S2k IS A 4 CYL, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MEKE IT REV 18k rpm, UNLIKE A 10 CYL
Well, is it it really impossible to make 4 cyl revving 18kk rpm? Instead of 10 cylinders revving to 18k, we'd have 4 cyl revving to 18k
What's the problem with that? If F1 cars can race 3 hours in a row at 18k rpm, why not the S2k?
So I'm going back to my original question: Why Honda did not make a special S2k version to rev 18k rpm?
I'm not an engineer and am clueless about engines...... I am just asking an hypothetical question here
- Why Honda did not build an S2k revving 18k rpm?
Sounds like a weird question? Impossible for a 4 cyl to rev 8k rpm you say?
Well, look at it this way; F1 cars can rev 18k rpm. I know they are 10 cyl engines, but does it matters in terms of reliability issue revving 10 cyl at 18k rpm vs. a 4 cyl engine to rev that high?
I don't see the difference, honestly. If a cylinder rev 18k times per minute, does it matter that 10 cyl do it at the same time vs. 4 cyl? I'm speaking just for reliability issue here, since most of you probably will say: THE S2k IS A 4 CYL, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MEKE IT REV 18k rpm, UNLIKE A 10 CYL
Well, is it it really impossible to make 4 cyl revving 18kk rpm? Instead of 10 cylinders revving to 18k, we'd have 4 cyl revving to 18k
What's the problem with that? If F1 cars can race 3 hours in a row at 18k rpm, why not the S2k?
So I'm going back to my original question: Why Honda did not make a special S2k version to rev 18k rpm?
I'm not an engineer and am clueless about engines...... I am just asking an hypothetical question here
07-27-2010 | 06:10 AM
#14
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 23,911
Likes: 4
From: Benicia, CA
260hp v6 isn't really competing with a ferrarri, lambo by any means. Porsche, possibly. Other than the exclusivity aspect in which IMO was more along the lines of "Why in the world would you spend 90K on that?" Don't get me wrong, amazing car... but it doesn't hold it's weight in the performance per $ category. But it looked like one, so I guess that counts 
07-27-2010 | 07:19 AM
#15
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 0
F1 engines displace only 2.4 litres over 8 cylinders. They have a large bore and a tiny stroke, that's the reason they can rev so high. The stroke on an F1 engine is about 1.5 inches compared to 3.5 inches on an F20. If you put a 1.5 inch stroke on an F20 you'll end up with a .75 litre engine making 100 hp. To make more hp out of such a tiny engine you'd have to up the compression ratio and make the engine so volatile it would become unreliable.
Anyway, people complain that the S2k's engine makes no power below 4000rpm. Can you imagine what they would say about an engine that makes no power below 12000rpm?
07-27-2010 | 07:27 AM
#16
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 3,187
Likes: 3
overcoming pumping loss, inertia, etc. is hard to do. it takes more engineering work and more costly components/processes/etc. the added cost is passed to the customer without really achieving a lot of new, measurable objectives.
if the car moved upmarket, a still higher revving engine would be more feasible as they'd have more money to work with. but not for a $34k sticker. and i don't think we'll get cars with F1-level revs AND 100k mile reliability for under seven figures in this next decade.
if the car moved upmarket, a still higher revving engine would be more feasible as they'd have more money to work with. but not for a $34k sticker. and i don't think we'll get cars with F1-level revs AND 100k mile reliability for under seven figures in this next decade.
07-27-2010 | 07:34 AM
#17
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Not Sure,Jul 27 2010, 07:19 AM
F1 engines displace only 2.4 litres over 8 cylinders. They have a large bore and a tiny stroke, that's the reason they can rev so high. The stroke on an F1 engine is about 1.5 inches compared to 3.5 inches on an F20. If you put a 1.5 inch stroke on an F20 you'll end up with a .75 litre engine making 100 hp. To make more hp out of such a tiny engine you'd have to up the compression ratio and make the engine so volatile it would become unreliable.
Anyway, people complain that the S2k's engine makes no power below 4000rpm. Can you imagine what they would say about an engine that makes no power below 12000rpm?
Anyway, people complain that the S2k's engine makes no power below 4000rpm. Can you imagine what they would say about an engine that makes no power below 12000rpm?
07-27-2010 | 07:57 AM
#19
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,792
Likes: 1
From: New Market, AL
Originally Posted by ginaprincess,Jul 27 2010, 05:56 AM
Hmm, I fully agree with everything y ou said except for this quote below
Honda doesn't want to compete with Ferrari and Lamborghin, Porsche and Bugatti, Pagani or anyother supercar maker
(Reckon)
I though that's what the NSX original Honda intention was. To compete with the Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porches by offering a mini super car at a very competitive price, and very reliable
Or not?
Honda doesn't want to compete with Ferrari and Lamborghin, Porsche and Bugatti, Pagani or anyother supercar maker
(Reckon)
I though that's what the NSX original Honda intention was. To compete with the Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porches by offering a mini super car at a very competitive price, and very reliable
Or not?
I think Honda wanted to show they could do as good a job as the other manufacturers when it came to super sports cars. They showed they had the technological know how to make a performance vehicle at a low cost. I'm not sure they ever really planned on keeping the NSX around for 15 years like they did, or the S2000 for 10 years. Both happened to hit upon an unusually large demographic during their initial years and as such was able to keep the production going longer than expected (good for us).
I have to agree with the path that Honda is moving towards. Vehicles like the NSX and S2000 do not appeal to a large portion of the USDM, especially in tough economic times like these. The entire fossil fuel issue is another reason the 'sports car' has been replaced with the 'sportier car' - i.e., the sportier versions of base vehicles (V6 Accord, Civic Si, Corolla S, etc.). Unfortunately for us, this leaves us in the difficult position of finding a sports car we can enjoy with reliability and affordability.
07-27-2010 | 05:20 PM
#20
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 21,530
Likes: 17
From: Gleening the apex
Originally Posted by ginaprincess,Jul 27 2010, 07:27 AM
- Why Honda did not build an S2k revving 18k rpm?
You would need a pneumatic system like an F1 set up; all the reciprocating internals would need to be titanium, ceramic ,or beryllium and the type of torsional loads on the cylinder walls would be so high that current piston ring technology would not live for 50000 miles let alone 100K
You also would need fuel delivery system specially designed around an such a highly strung engine and we haven't even considered the clutch, trans, and diff
Bottom line
Only a light weight car in the Elise class or say a Super7 @ around 800kilos would reap any benefits that and the fact the engine price would approach 200k