The Hierarchy of High-Revving Engines: TSX's K24A2 in Good Standing
12-14-2005, 01:27 PM
#81
Banned
Join Date: Nov 2005
Age: 49
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
seems like no one in the world can engineer engines as well as honda so far
but i've been hearing news of hyundai joining F1 and coming out with a N/A 2.4liter which produces 900hps.....
one day, hyundai may topple honda
but i've been hearing news of hyundai joining F1 and coming out with a N/A 2.4liter which produces 900hps.....
one day, hyundai may topple honda
12-14-2005, 09:40 PM
#82
Drives a Sunfire
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Age: 43
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by project13TSX
one day, hyundai may topple honda
dom, not referring to you in particular, everyone combined that seemed to jump all over me for those comments. At least we can all agree on something, we all love our Honda engines (well, not me yet, i'm still lovin my sunfire).
12-15-2005, 08:51 AM
#84
Senior Moderator
Originally Posted by project13TSX
one day, hyundai may topple honda
01-09-2006, 10:07 AM
#89
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by project13TSX
1. Honda S2000:
Engine Code: F20C1
Bore/Stroke: 3.43" X 3.31"
Redline: 9000rpm
Piston Speed: 4965 Ft/min
...
Good news guys, Hondata'ed TSX takes the title as the world's fastest piston speed from a production engine.
The S2000 is no longer #1 with it's longer stroke and slower rpm.
Hondata TSX is piston speed champion of the world 3.9 x 7600 / 6 = 4940 FT/min
People with a 04 TSX with hondata now have the fastest moving pistons from a production engine in the world!
Engine Code: F20C1
Bore/Stroke: 3.43" X 3.31"
Redline: 9000rpm
Piston Speed: 4965 Ft/min
...
Good news guys, Hondata'ed TSX takes the title as the world's fastest piston speed from a production engine.
The S2000 is no longer #1 with it's longer stroke and slower rpm.
Hondata TSX is piston speed champion of the world 3.9 x 7600 / 6 = 4940 FT/min
People with a 04 TSX with hondata now have the fastest moving pistons from a production engine in the world!
01-09-2006, 11:10 AM
#90
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hypothetically speaking.... say the rsx-s and tsx both had the same piston speeds at fuel cut (pretty close as it is...).... would it be safe to assume that the tsx had less stress on the engine because that speed is stretched out over a longer distance, i.e. it has 15%~ longer range to achieve that high speed so it has more time/distance to accelerate/decelerate with its' longer stroke?
01-09-2006, 11:22 AM
#91
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Bgreat question... I don't know. But I have a feeling the stresses would be dictated more by the rod/stroke ratio, less favorable in the K24A2 than the K20A2
01-09-2006, 11:35 AM
#92
VSA Rocks
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 1,410
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by spotch
Hypothetically speaking.... say the rsx-s and tsx both had the same piston speeds at fuel cut (pretty close as it is...).... would it be safe to assume that the tsx had less stress on the engine because that speed is stretched out over a longer distance, i.e. it has 15%~ longer range to achieve that high speed so it has more time/distance to accelerate/decelerate with its' longer stroke?
RSX - less stress / more fatigue cycles
TSX - more stress (due to R/S ratio) / less fatigue cycles
It would all depend where the 2 points are on the S/N curve for whatever the rod alloy.
01-09-2006, 11:52 AM
#93
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Black_6spd
Without any calcs (too lazy to look up my dynamics equations), it would seem to be a wash:
RSX - less stress / more fatigue cycles
TSX - more stress (due to R/S ratio) / less fatigue cycles
It would all depend where the 2 points are on the S/N curve for whatever the rod alloy.
RSX - less stress / more fatigue cycles
TSX - more stress (due to R/S ratio) / less fatigue cycles
It would all depend where the 2 points are on the S/N curve for whatever the rod alloy.
I know the k24 has a worse rod/stroke ratio but it's also getting revved a lot lower than the k20 (1000~ rpms, stock fuel cut to fuel cut) so wouldn't that negate the advantage the k20 has in r/s ratio a little? If they were getting revved to the same rpm's I would imagine the k24s worse r/s ratio would hurt it a lot more than it does with it revving a lot lower.... no?
01-09-2006, 12:42 PM
#94
Intermediate
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
*sigh*... all of this discussion of smooth, high-revving engines really makes me miss my RX-8. My TSX is a nice replacement in terms of luxury and reliability (reliability being a particularly weak point of the RX-8 in the year I owned it), but that rotary engine is the very definition of smooooooth high RPMs! Just the fact that there's a warning tone at, what 8000 or 9000 RPM should tell you how smooth it is even when at the top of its rev range. The RX-8 is probably more properly compared to an S2000 in terms of handling & performance, but I don't have an S2000 
That RX-8 reminds me of an old girlfriend... great passion (wink wink nudge nudge) but high maintenance. Oh well. At least I have the memories, even if life is a little more pedestrian these days.
That RX-8 reminds me of an old girlfriend... great passion (wink wink nudge nudge) but high maintenance. Oh well. At least I have the memories, even if life is a little more pedestrian these days.
01-09-2006, 07:54 PM
#95
Driver/Detailer
R/S ratio determines who revvable the engine is and how long it will survive at high rpm. Since the TSX's R/S ratio is smaller than the RSX, it gets a cutoff of 7300rpm or 7600rpm with Hondata. It's already factored in. So you can't say that the TSX's engine is less reliable with their designated fuel cutoffs. If you were comparing both engines spinning at 8100rpm, then yes, the TSX will be less reliable. But not when one is at 7300rpm and the other at 8100rpm.
And if you are worried about the TSX having a rod failure, that is unlikely to happen because it has a shorter rod than the RSX! It is the crankshaft rotation diameter that is larger for the TSX.
At the same ft/min, the RSX would be having more stress on the bearings and rods as the number of changes in the piston/rod movement direction is higher with the higher rpm.
In the TSX, the stress is on the piston rings, pistons and cylinder wall. So with the TSX, failure should occur in these 3 components resulting in oil and compression leakage in the piston rings, a cracked piston head (super unlikely from just speed), and a scoured cylinder wall. More like gradual damage instead of catastrophic failure.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
And if you are worried about the TSX having a rod failure, that is unlikely to happen because it has a shorter rod than the RSX! It is the crankshaft rotation diameter that is larger for the TSX.
At the same ft/min, the RSX would be having more stress on the bearings and rods as the number of changes in the piston/rod movement direction is higher with the higher rpm.
In the TSX, the stress is on the piston rings, pistons and cylinder wall. So with the TSX, failure should occur in these 3 components resulting in oil and compression leakage in the piston rings, a cracked piston head (super unlikely from just speed), and a scoured cylinder wall. More like gradual damage instead of catastrophic failure.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
01-09-2006, 08:00 PM
#96
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronng
In the TSX, the stress is on the piston rings, pistons and cylinder wall. So with the TSX, failure should occur in these 3 components resulting in oil and compression leakage in the piston rings, a cracked piston head (super unlikely from just speed), and a scoured cylinder wall. More like gradual damage instead of catastrophic failure.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
01-09-2006, 08:09 PM
#97
That was uncalled for...
They forgot my engine... 3.0L V6 in a Ford Taurus... Thats right... Taurus!
Oh...I forgot to mention the engine was built and designed by Yamaha and has a 8100 RPM redline...
Oh...I forgot to mention the engine was built and designed by Yamaha and has a 8100 RPM redline...
01-09-2006, 08:53 PM
#99
That was uncalled for...
Originally Posted by aaronng
What ford taurus does 8100rpm? I thought the the 3.0L V6 made peak power at 5000rpm?
From Wikipedia:
"The SHO V6 was a high-tech design when it bowed in 1989 at 3.0L (2986cc). It was an iron block, aluminum head 24-valve DOHC engine with a then-innovative variable length intake manifold. Its oversquare design, which sported an 89mm bore and 80mm stroke, gave the high-revving engine an output of 220bhp (164 kW) and 200lb/ft of torque (271 Nm) at the flywheel.
In 1996, Ford replaced this engine with a 3.4L V8 and automatic transmission."
"
01-09-2006, 09:24 PM
#101
That was uncalled for...
Originally Posted by aaronng
That's a pretty neat engine. The other V6 of the Taurus was only 158hp. LOL. Your V6 gives 4251 ft/min!
And yes, that is my car...
01-09-2006, 09:30 PM
#102
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Actually, no. The list I put up was based on the manufacturer's redline, because if we based ourselves on fuel cutoff, in some cases we wouldn't find any, or they would be way beyond the engine's reasonnable limitations, whereas the redline is a common denominator for every engine.
The 3.0V6 Yamaha SHO engine had a redline of 7000RPM, but could freerev beyond 8000rpm (for no reason because peak power was at 6800rpm).
With an 80mm stroke and a redline of 7000rpm, that gives you 3674.54 Ft./min, much less than any of the 27 engines I had listed back then.
It was indeed an admirable engine, with undoubtedly much more potential than it's actual output, but unfortunately it was crippled by Ford in order for the economy sedan that was the Taurus not to compete and actually kill the Mustang.
The 3.0V6 Yamaha SHO engine had a redline of 7000RPM, but could freerev beyond 8000rpm (for no reason because peak power was at 6800rpm).
With an 80mm stroke and a redline of 7000rpm, that gives you 3674.54 Ft./min, much less than any of the 27 engines I had listed back then.
It was indeed an admirable engine, with undoubtedly much more potential than it's actual output, but unfortunately it was crippled by Ford in order for the economy sedan that was the Taurus not to compete and actually kill the Mustang.
01-09-2006, 09:47 PM
#103
That was uncalled for...
Originally Posted by sauceman
Actually, no. The list I put up was based on the manufacturer's redline, because if we based ourselves on fuel cutoff, in some cases we wouldn't find any, or they would be way beyond the engine's reasonnable limitations, whereas the redline is a common denominator for every engine.
The 3.0V6 Yamaha SHO engine had a redline of 7000RPM, but could freerev beyond 8000rpm (for no reason because peak power was at 6800rpm).
With an 80mm stroke and a redline of 7000rpm, that gives you 3674.54 Ft./min, much less than any of the 27 engines I had listed back then.
It was indeed an admirable engine, with undoubtedly much more potential than it's actual output, but unfortunately it was crippled by Ford in order for the economy sedan that was the Taurus not to compete and actually kill the Mustang.
The 3.0V6 Yamaha SHO engine had a redline of 7000RPM, but could freerev beyond 8000rpm (for no reason because peak power was at 6800rpm).
With an 80mm stroke and a redline of 7000rpm, that gives you 3674.54 Ft./min, much less than any of the 27 engines I had listed back then.
It was indeed an admirable engine, with undoubtedly much more potential than it's actual output, but unfortunately it was crippled by Ford in order for the economy sedan that was the Taurus not to compete and actually kill the Mustang.
I will be honest, I didnt know peak power was at 6800 RPM...I stand honestly corrected and now see how the engine didnt make the "list"...
01-09-2006, 10:27 PM
#104
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by aaronng
R/S ratio determines who revvable the engine is and how long it will survive at high rpm. Since the TSX's R/S ratio is smaller than the RSX, it gets a cutoff of 7300rpm or 7600rpm with Hondata. It's already factored in. So you can't say that the TSX's engine is less reliable with their designated fuel cutoffs. If you were comparing both engines spinning at 8100rpm, then yes, the TSX will be less reliable. But not when one is at 7300rpm and the other at 8100rpm.
And if you are worried about the TSX having a rod failure, that is unlikely to happen because it has a shorter rod than the RSX! It is the crankshaft rotation diameter that is larger for the TSX.
At the same ft/min, the RSX would be having more stress on the bearings and rods as the number of changes in the piston/rod movement direction is higher with the higher rpm.
In the TSX, the stress is on the piston rings, pistons and cylinder wall. So with the TSX, failure should occur in these 3 components resulting in oil and compression leakage in the piston rings, a cracked piston head (super unlikely from just speed), and a scoured cylinder wall. More like gradual damage instead of catastrophic failure.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
And if you are worried about the TSX having a rod failure, that is unlikely to happen because it has a shorter rod than the RSX! It is the crankshaft rotation diameter that is larger for the TSX.
At the same ft/min, the RSX would be having more stress on the bearings and rods as the number of changes in the piston/rod movement direction is higher with the higher rpm.
In the TSX, the stress is on the piston rings, pistons and cylinder wall. So with the TSX, failure should occur in these 3 components resulting in oil and compression leakage in the piston rings, a cracked piston head (super unlikely from just speed), and a scoured cylinder wall. More like gradual damage instead of catastrophic failure.
The RSX on the other hand, has stresses on 2 components that can cause catastrophic faulire by throwing a rod or spinning a bearing. I think this is why realtime is using the K24 instead of K20 in the SCAA now.
Excellent post! That's sort-of what I was thinking, but much better put and backed up by more intelligence.
01-09-2006, 10:29 PM
#105
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Age: 54
Posts: 904
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the problem is with the TSX is that if you look at thoes stats the TSX has the longest stroke next to the saleen which is a V8. unfortunatly unless you know the weight of the piston and con rod as a unit its hard to say how many RPM's it can take without failure. the piston velocity is 1 thing but the stress on thoes parts can be quite another.
i belive the TSX engine would end up with the same piston speed and redline of the RSX if the pistons could be made lighter without sacrificing the reliability or increasing expense of the engine parts.
i belive the TSX engine would end up with the same piston speed and redline of the RSX if the pistons could be made lighter without sacrificing the reliability or increasing expense of the engine parts.
01-09-2006, 11:01 PM
#107
Driver/Detailer
Lighter pistons means revvability increases because of the decrease in the forces from the change in direction of piston mass. However, this does not take into account the resistance between the piston, rings and cylinder wall. I'm not sure what cylinder liner the S2000 uses, is it FRM? Or Nikasil? With the TSX, it has only iron sleeve liners. It might not be able to withstand the pressure/heat/force that the piston puts on it at 8000rpm. At 7600rpm, it is already matching that of the S2000. If the S2000 does have FRM liners, then the TSX at 7600rpm with iron liners is already sort of a miracle.
01-10-2006, 09:27 AM
#108
Advanced
Join Date: Dec 2005
Age: 44
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.hondanews.com/CatID2066?m...41147&mime=asc
The s2k has "Fiber Reinforced Metal" cylinder liners....
The s2k has "Fiber Reinforced Metal" cylinder liners....
01-10-2006, 09:52 AM
#109
Have camera, will travel
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Federal Way, WA
Age: 63
Posts: 7,783
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by sauceman
Good point. This may explain things about how some of us have high oil consumption.
Seems to me you wouldn't see these problems until much later, if it shakes out like aaronng describes. My engine was experiencing some oil loss the first time I checked its level, at 1000 miles or so. I wouldn't think piston wear and piston wall problems would manifest themselves until much later in the engines life.
Am I off here?
01-10-2006, 02:31 PM
#110
Moderator Alumnus
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Windsor-Quebec corridor
Age: 47
Posts: 7,709
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Originally Posted by waTSX
So, you're saying that the relatively high oil consumption experienced by some is caused by the things aaronng mentioned, even though this oil consumption is seen in engines with low miles.
Seems to me you wouldn't see these problems until much later, if it shakes out like aaronng describes. My engine was experiencing some oil loss the first time I checked its level, at 1000 miles or so. I wouldn't think piston wear and piston wall problems would manifest themselves until much later in the engines life.
Am I off here?
Seems to me you wouldn't see these problems until much later, if it shakes out like aaronng describes. My engine was experiencing some oil loss the first time I checked its level, at 1000 miles or so. I wouldn't think piston wear and piston wall problems would manifest themselves until much later in the engines life.
Am I off here?
And it is perfectly normal for a new engine that hasn't been broken in yet to drink a few extra quarts of oil while settling in. It has nothing to do with the oil we are burning in high-mileage engines.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
cycdaniel
1G TSX Performance Parts & Modifications
8
12-17-2019 10:58 AM
DiamondJoeQuimby
Car Parts for Sale
1
09-10-2015 11:40 AM
