G25A Specs
08-12-2005, 07:13 PM
#1
Cruisin'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Williamsville, NY
Age: 47
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G25A Specs
I found this info on HT and was just wondering if it's correct. I'm most concerned with the bore/stroke and compression ratio.
97 Acura TL G25A Inline 5 cylinder Engine
* Water cooled, 4 stroke single overhead cam gasoline engine
* It has an inline 5-cylinder 30 degree slant mount cylinder arrangement
* The bore and stroke is 85.0 x 86.4 mm
* The actual displacement is 2,451 cubic centimetres or 149 cubic inches
* The compression ratio is 9.0:1
* The valve train is belt driven with a single overhead cam and 4 valves per cylinder
* The lubrication system is a forced and wet sump trochoid pump
* This engine requires UNLEADED grade gasoline with a 91 Pump Octane Number or higher
Engine Type: 2.5-litre,SOHC, 20 valve, inline 5 cylinder
Horsepower (SAE Net): 196 hp @ 6300rpm
Torque (SAE Net): 185lbs-ft @ 3900rpm
Redline: 6800rpm
Fuel Cutoff: 7100rpm
Engine Block: Aluminum alloy with cast iron cylinder liners
Cylinder Heads : Aluminum alloy
97 Acura TL G25A Inline 5 cylinder Engine
* Water cooled, 4 stroke single overhead cam gasoline engine
* It has an inline 5-cylinder 30 degree slant mount cylinder arrangement
* The bore and stroke is 85.0 x 86.4 mm
* The actual displacement is 2,451 cubic centimetres or 149 cubic inches
* The compression ratio is 9.0:1
* The valve train is belt driven with a single overhead cam and 4 valves per cylinder
* The lubrication system is a forced and wet sump trochoid pump
* This engine requires UNLEADED grade gasoline with a 91 Pump Octane Number or higher
Engine Type: 2.5-litre,SOHC, 20 valve, inline 5 cylinder
Horsepower (SAE Net): 196 hp @ 6300rpm
Torque (SAE Net): 185lbs-ft @ 3900rpm
Redline: 6800rpm
Fuel Cutoff: 7100rpm
Engine Block: Aluminum alloy with cast iron cylinder liners
Cylinder Heads : Aluminum alloy
08-12-2005, 07:19 PM
#2
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Everything is correct except the torque (its 170 foot pounds) and the compression ratio, its 9.6:1
The horsepower is more likely 190, but officially its 176 hp.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3016?m...&archives=1998
The horsepower is more likely 190, but officially its 176 hp.
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID3016?m...&archives=1998
08-12-2005, 09:02 PM
#3
Registered Driver
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, Rhode Island
Age: 37
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Also, though not a huge difference, and I'm not up to checking the math, but the owners manual says 150cu in.
Also, 9.6:1 compression ratio like what was said.
Also, 9.6:1 compression ratio like what was said.
08-12-2005, 10:07 PM
#5
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Originally Posted by 03CoupeV6
Recommeded fuel 96 octane according to hondanews? A typo, apparently!
There are a few typos throught the site... i've sent them numerous e-mails pointing those out and no response
08-12-2005, 11:59 PM
#6
2003 Acura MDX
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Gaithersburg, MD
Age: 36
Posts: 640
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ken1997TL
There are a few typos throught the site... i've sent them numerous e-mails pointing those out and no response
ha, what an enthusiast, I admire your dedication in the most heterosexual way.
08-13-2005, 01:17 AM
#7
Racer
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The horsepower is more likely 190, but officially its 176 hp.
What do you mean? I thought the 2.5 model has 176 HP. Whats with the 190HP?
Also, is there proof that the 2.5 is indeed underrated and really more than 176HP?
I keep on hearing that its more than 176 but skeptic. Is this really true?
Trending Topics
08-13-2005, 08:56 AM
#8
Registered Driver
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Bristol, Rhode Island
Age: 37
Posts: 2,493
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
I don't know where to proof is, but I believe that the reasoning was that they didn't want the 2.5 (lower model) to be too close to the 3.2 (higher model) so they underrated it, helping to justify the price difference.
08-13-2005, 02:52 PM
#9
Senior Moderator
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Better Neighborhood, Arizona
Posts: 45,641
Received 2,329 Likes
on
1,309 Posts
Originally Posted by Ysidro
Whoa! Hold on a minute.
What do you mean? I thought the 2.5 model has 176 HP. Whats with the 190HP?
Also, is there proof that the 2.5 is indeed underrated and really more than 176HP?
I keep on hearing that its more than 176 but skeptic. Is this really true?
What do you mean? I thought the 2.5 model has 176 HP. Whats with the 190HP?
Also, is there proof that the 2.5 is indeed underrated and really more than 176HP?
I keep on hearing that its more than 176 but skeptic. Is this really true?
It was underrated so that the engine (which was in the Acura Vigor originally) wouldnt "steal" sales from the Legend and would be somewhat in the middle of the Integra and Legend.
08-13-2005, 03:00 PM
#10
Registered Abuser of VTEC
Originally Posted by Ken1997TL
Dyno's have proven it to be underrated.
It was underrated so that the engine (which was in the Acura Vigor originally) wouldnt "steal" sales from the Legend and would be somewhat in the middle of the Integra and Legend.
It was underrated so that the engine (which was in the Acura Vigor originally) wouldnt "steal" sales from the Legend and would be somewhat in the middle of the Integra and Legend.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
emailnatec
5G TLX Tires, Wheels & Suspension
29
09-28-2018 04:27 PM
4drviper
3G TL Tires, Wheels & Suspension
2
09-23-2015 07:42 PM
