MemRheins

The Horse Power Race:









Hopefully the modern "HP Race" can live up to its predecessor...

05_TSX_GP

In the case of NSX, the car itself costs so much more than normal to produce mostly because of its all-aluminium body.

Though I agree your point about more difficult and costly to produce a higher displacement engine making high rpm. M engines are good examples IMHO

SlayerGTR

i jus testdrove da new 05 A4 2.0T quattro 6speed

that car only has 200hp, but its the fun factor dats more important
of course i understand that cars 0-60 is more in the upper 7 seconds, nothin to be proud of, but at least da 6speed is fun to drive, especially w/ the smooth clutch and sports suspensions (AND AWD!)

AlterZgo

I don't think 200 hp out of 2.4L is all that impressive when Honda's own K20 is now putting out 210 hp.

As others have mentioned, the BMW engine putting out 215 hp is a detuned version of a 3.0 L 255 engine. The truth of the matter is, BMW is one of the best engine makers in the world. If push came to shove, they can put their 3.2L 333 hp M engine in the 3 series. Furthermore, the 600 hp V-12 in the McLaren F1 is a BMW M engine. Finally, BMW tends to underestimate their hp. Consider the fact that BMW's current 235hp 330i runs 0-60 in 5.6 seconds. I think the new 255 engine will easily keep BMW competitive. So, I don't think BMW has anything to be embarrassed about when it comes to engine design.

That said, Honda is every bit as good as BMW in engine design - probably even better. Unfortunately, Honda takes an ultra-conservative stance on power when it comes to production cars and they absolutely refuse to be a class leader in hp in ANY of the cars they sell despite easily having the capability to do so.

Although I've owned nothing Nissans for 16 yrs before my TSX, I'm not impressed at all with Nissan's power ratings. The truth of the matter is, the 2002 Altima with a 240 hp version of the VQ35DE runs just about as fast as the newest 35th Anniversary Z with a 300 hp version of the same VQ35DE motor. Both run 0-60s in the high 5s and turn the 1/4 mile in the low 14s. That's pathetic considering the Z has an *alleged* 60 hp advantage. The VQ is a great engine, but that doesn't change the fact that the Z engine and the G35 engine doesn't really make their claimed 298 or 300 hp. It's lame that the old BMW 330i with 235hp is quicker than the brand new 300 hp Z!

biker

You got the story close but that was for a speeding ticket not parking.

biker

I think some is telling tales when claiming 5.6s 0-60 in a 330.

The problem with looking at HP alone is that you can get misled to the potential overall performance. The reason that the Altima can keep up with a 60HP deficit is that the torque is about the same and the weight of the car is much lower.

An Elise with just 190HP can run circles around most cars with over 100HP more because it's so light. There's nothing wrong with the 298HP claim with the MT VQ - the problem is that the G35 has gotten to a porky 3500lbs!

A Gen 6 LX Accord with a puny 150HP could keep up with a TSX cause it weighs less than 3000lbs.

AlterZgo

That someone telling tales would be Car and Driver magazine:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article....&page_number=2

The truth is, BMW has always tested much better than what their hp numbers would indicate. For instance back when the 325i had only 190 hp, it was running 0-60 in the mid to low 6s. Come to think of it, back when the Nissan Maxima had the VQ30DE with 190 hp, it was also running 0-60 in about 6.6 seconds.

Yes. Weight plays a factor. However, 60 hp is a HUGE difference. Besides, I did the research and the truth of the matter is, the Altima is not much lighter than the Z. The 2005 300 hp 350Z Anniversary edition weighs 3,247 lbs. The 2002 240 hp Nissan Altima 3.5SE weighs 3,225 lbs. Here is the comparison info:

http://autos.msn.com/research/compar...00499&v=t95063

I highly doubt that the 22 lb weight advantage the Altima has over the Z would account for why it is practically as quick despite the alleged 60 hp disadvantage.

Furthermore, the people in the Nissan forums were all in a tizzy over this issue as those w/ 255 hp Maximas were very pissed that they were getting practically the exact same hp on the dyno as those with 240 hp Altimas. The 287 hp Zs were barely getting 10-20 more hp, if that.

Nissan wins the hp race by inflating their numbers. Same thing happened w/ the Q45. It claims 340 hp, but its out-accelerated by a lowly 300 hp LS430.

Frankly, I don't know why Nissan does this. Their product is very competitive. There's no need to claim more hp. It's much more impressive to always underrate hp like BMW and Porsche and then have their cars pull ridiculously good numbers when actually tested.

GIBSON6594

RSX has been out a few years and has been upgraded. You don't think Acura could get a ton of more power out of the K24? The TSX has only been out 2 MY's. Acura will revamp the K24 to respark TSX sales once more powerful cars start decreasing TSX sales. Right now the TSX is selling like hotcakes so there is no need to spend money on a power increase. Give Honda/Acura some time and they will do wonders with the K24. I'll take a Honda engine over a BMW engine any day of the week.

05_TSX_GP

They have put that M engine in the 3er, it's called the E46 M3. I guess you actually mean putting the M engine in a non-M 3er (let's call it the 333i?) But how can a BMW with a M engine even w/o the M suspension tuning not be a M car??!!? Anyway, that would cost too much (as a non-M car) for production, maintenance and what price can this car be set? I think that makes no sense at all. On the other hand, a turbo I6 is more likely for briging the hp gap between the E90 330i and the E90 M3.

I thought I was the only one ever remembering the McLaren F1's existence and its story (pisses me off when auto mags or TV programs hardly ever compare the likes of Enzo, Carrera GT against the F1)! Anyway, that car and engine are of the exotic category, kind of irrelevant here.

Yup, both BMW and Honda are top engine makers in the world, no doubt about it. However, Honda is not so ultra-conservative... their specific output numbers (hp/L) have always been pretty impressive. Just that I wish Honda would build a more proper exotic flagship sportscar - a 400+ hp NSX, focus the R&D on the drivetrain and ditch the all-aluminium body thing that costs so much but didn't give as much weight advantage as hoped.

dom

When the Enzo was released magazines quoted and sometimes listed the F1's performance specs in the articles. The Enzo had better accerleration numbers but we know the F1 rules in top speed. Until they're tested side by side the numbers don't mean much IMO.

05_TSX_GP

Thanks for filling in the info. F1 remains IMO the top exotic sportscar representing the best automobile innovation and even project management/execution. Gordon Murray is a genius

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Honestly though, the top speed is just a bragging number. There are hardly enough racetracks in the world where these cars can consistently get to top speed so acceleration and handling become far more important and the Enzo will most likely edge out the F1 in those areas.

dom

No doubt the Enzo will outhandle the F1 and I agree that top speed is bragging rights only. But when two cars do low's 3's to 60 and low 11's in the 1/4mile in seperate tests I'd like to see them tested side by side to really see how far apart or close they are.

05_TSX_GP

Trying hard not to hijack this thread but can't help to put in another

One way to compare how Enzo really stacks up against the F1 is to race Enzo at 24 hours Le Mans. The F1 made history at its debut, accomplishing all that when its designer set out to create an exotic sports road car and NOT a race car (I have the book Driving Ambition to back my up).

sauceman

The Enzo would kill the F1 at the Circuit de la Sarthe. Yes, it is a blisteringly fast track, but also with heavy braking points, and I'm sure the Enzo would be more than up to the task at curves like Indianapolis and even the chicanes along Mulsane. If you want to see what I mean, check out the Maserati prototype this year at the Le Mans 24 hours: It's a derived version of the Enzo.

Let them compete together at the Nardo track, and we'll separate the men from the boyz.

sauceman, who drove on the Circuit de la Sarthe... In a Clio 1.6.

05_TSX_GP

Damn... guess I'll just have to accept reality that even the McLaren F1 will be surpassed over time. I would still take comfort in the fact that it's taken over 10 years for this to happen

If nothing else, at least its clever packaging with centre-driving position to make it a 3-seater exotic is still the one and only

So what was your lap time in the Clio 1.6?

AlterZgo

Gibson,

If you read my whole message, you will see that we basically agree. I am not knocking Honda. In fact, I've stated that Honda is likely a better engine builder than BMW. I was replying to a message in which indydriver claimed that BMW sucks b/c they can only build a 215 hp 6 cylinder engine when the TSX's 2.4 liter makes 200 hp. My point is, the K20 is more impressive. I just wouldn't be using the TSX engine as an example of Honda's superior engine building capability b/c it's pretty mediocre when it comes to output per liter as indydriver did.

I doubt if Honda will give the TSX all that much hp. We may see a 10 hp bump like on the RSX. But, I'm sincerely hoping I'm wrong and would be thrilled if Honda put in the rumored 2.2L 240 hp turbo motor in a TSX instead of just the RDX.

AlterZgo

With respect to the Enzo vs. F1, I am sure that the F1 can out accelerate the Enzo if they geared it down to a 210 mph top speed instead of the 230+ top speed it does stock. Heck, even w/ the stock gearing the F1 would likely pull on an Enzo at speed. Magazines routinely reported that a stock McLaren F1 would out-accelerate a Formula 1 car at speeds over 120 mph due to the McLaren's superior aerodynamics.

Also, in terms of handling, the F1 has some really cool technology like fans underneath that generate ridiculous amts of downforce, which would ultimately generate more grip than the Enzo's aerodynamic aids alone.

sauceman

What I'm saying is that on most any road track, the Enzo would beat the McLaren F1.

BUT on a high-speed ring like the Nardo track in Italy (12km diameter circular track), the F1 would outspeed the Enzo. It's all about pure speed there. The slight curving combined with the banking results in the track allowing you to go around it without turning the steering at speeds of 220mph (350kph).

And there the F1 wins.

BTW, I drove on the road section of the track, that is, from the beginning of Mulsanne to a little past Indianapolis. What I found interesting is that the locals know they're on a race track when they take the Mulsanne straight, so they all floor it no matter the speed limit (80kph). I didn't, but my Clio took 215kph somewhere else.

GIBSON6594

Ummm, did read your whole message. Only quoted part of it. That was the part I responded to. Glad we agree however.

05_TSX_GP

that's what I understood you're saying. I've accepted that F1 can now be beaten in road course racing. In fact, 2003 was the last time any team has used the F1 in Japan's JGTC (now called SuperGT http://supergt.net/en/) and didn't do too well, only got 2 points through the entire year. I assume there's no team racing with the F1 in Europe anymore and obviously not in 24hr Le Mans.

BTW, those high-speed rings are As I recall from highschool physics, the slight curve + banking angle essentially represents an endless straight away, allowing cars to achive their respective top speeds

ClutchPerformer

That's true, as long as you realize that "superior" in this case means "doesn't create as much downforce".

dom

And they were talking an F1 car of 10 years ago. Not a recent example.

05_TSX_GP

Oh, don't go down the Formula One path... that has become a high speed (or even not-so-high speed too) parade instead of top-notch open-wheel racing. I am a bitter Formula One fan, if you haven't figured...

I miss the MP4-4 and the two great drivers who drove it! Now I better just keep it at this before getting for

AlterZgo

I thought superior meant the McLaren F1 was not an open wheel car and had a lower coefficient of drag than an open wheeled F1 racer.

With respect to downforce, I think the McLaren F1 may have had at least equal, if not superior downforce due to the active fans underneath the car.

AlterZgo

I may be talking out of my ass, but my impression is that an F1 car from 10 yrs ago was still ridiculously fast. In fact, they may have had about the same hp as today and better grip b/c as time went on, there changes made to reduce speeds in F1 racing. They reduce dthe size of the aerodynamic aids, limited the RPM, mandated grooved tires vs. slicks, etc.

Go back to the 70s and 80s turbo days of F1 and those cars were definitely faster than today's F1 cars as they literally produced 1500+ hp in qualifying trim.

05_TSX_GP

Already warned not to go down the path to discuss Formula One

RPM on today's F1 race cars is not limited by regulation, instead a stupid-ass rule introduced this year mandates 1 engine per car per TWO race weekends are mandated.

The MP4/4 that I was alluding to was the race car of then Honda Marlboro McLaren team, driven by Ayrton Senna and Alain Prost in 1988. With that car, the two of them combined to win all but 1 final race that year (15 out of 16!), when Senna was knocked off the track by an idiotic back-marker. The MP4/4 has a turbo-charged 1.5L HONDA V6 engine making 800bhp (in race trim, I believe), or an amazing 533bhp/L. http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame...php&carnum=343

Most of my knowledge about the late 80's F1 world is based on articles and books I read in recent years as I was just turning to my teens in 1988, so feel free to correct any mis-info or fill in any gap.

AlterZgo

05_TSX_GP,

This is getting off topic, but I just have to ask. Do you think Ayrton Senna is a better driver than Michael Schumacher? I think if Senna was alive today, and was on a half way decent team, Schumacher would not be nearly as dominant. If Senna and Schumacher were both on Ferrari, Senna would be the world champion, just as he consistently beat Alain Prost back when they were both racing for Honda.

Colin

Well I kind of disagree on this point. Remember when the new Accord debuted, the 240 was best (or equaled the Altima). The Odyssey has long been the most powerful minivan. The TL back in 2004 was the top in it's class. The TL Type-S before it was best in it's class. Even the TSX was tops when it debuted back in 2003 vs. A4, 323/325, S40. (ok so the IS300 had 215 but stay with me, I'm trying to make a point). The RSX Type-S was tops when it arrived. The Integra GS-R was unchallanged for years at 170hp. Add to this the fact that all the cars above get better economy AND lower emissions than the competition.

I would argue that Honda started the HP war! Others were forced to improve their models to keep up.

I would concede that in some cases Honda has not responded till the next All-New model and this allows them to fall behind sometimes (look at the current Civic). In other cases they've raised power to meet demand. The Odyssey has had 3 ratings over the years (210,240 and now 255) the MDX has also had 3 (240, 260 and 265).

CGTSX2004

iTrader: (1)

Excellent point, Colin. Didn't think of it that way.

If your point is right, then the RDX will have class leading power when it's introduced...

05_TSX_GP

Yes, I totally think Senna is a better driver. And he has a WAY more entertaining personality (in public / media). MS is too mechanical, if you know what I mean...

Though the way F1 has changed to nowadays, maybe Senna would have been so pissed off and walked away... heehee, but then again, if it hadn't been his death on track, F1 might not have evolved this way...

05_TSX_GP

Yes, very good observation Colin

Colin

Since we're running two topics here, I'd like to add my thoughts the Senna vs. schumacher topic. It we had Senna without Prost or visa versa, either one of them could have run off 7 titles. Both were good enough in their time to duplicate what Shumacher has done. Schumacher has the advantage of not having someone to fight with. His past opponants have all had their problems either personally (Haakinin sp.) or with their teams (Villeneuve/Williams, Hill/Williams)

Given recent F1 rules (refueling, tire changes) I feel Schumacher has an advantage. I don't feel he's an especially good overtaker, but agree he's blindingly fast on a clear track and in qualiffying.

In the Senna/Prost era, you had to take car of your tires in the early stages since you ere heavy with fuel. Without refueling, you had to make your passes on the track, and IMO Senna excelled here. IMO, Senna (and Prost) were better racers than Schumacher, but he's probably a faster driver. Another point to consider Schumacher brings the team together around him and focuses them in one direction. Senna was divisive. My favorite in Prost. He has a reputation for being a "thinking driver' but don't forget how shockingly quick he was when he joind McLaren. Just Ask Nikki Lauda, the champion the year before.

05_TSX_GP

Good analysis there Colin. Almost better than your own "Honda started the HP war" post. Yup, Prost didn't get his "Professor" nickname for no reason

So based on your analysis, had Senna been still around, MS would definitely have had a much much harder time in winning so many driver championship titles. Don't forget too that Senna was always very very quick in qualifying. He had 65 pole positions in his shortened career. To this date, MS has notched up 63. So I would still say Senna was the best racer on sheer speed and passing ability.

05_TSX_GP

I suggest to make a thread in the off-topic area for F1 discussion...

Now would like to throw in another in the HP race discussion

Before getting my TSX, E90 was high on my list and I was reading on it as much as possible. One of the most interesting innovations on the E90 is the brand new I6 engine line-up. In the nutshell, the simple stats of 12% more hp while 12% more fuel efficient on the 255hp 3.0L model is a very achievement from an engineering standpoint.

That said, Honda rules in engine making (as well)

Colin

I'm still blown away with what Senna accomplished in his time span. If he was still around, Schumacher might not have won his first 2-3 titles so easily. However, by the time Shumacher was working on #3-4, I think Senna would have been past his competative prime. He would have still taken wins and poles but I think titles would have gone to Schumacher.

I view Sennas poles like I view MS' wins. Huge mechanical advantage! Remember for most of those poles, he had a Honda Qualifying engine behind him. Just as MS benefits from Ferrari's reliability. Senna benefited from Honda Power.

05_TSX_GP

Hey Colin, I've created a thread in the Off-Topic area, subjected "F1 - who's better, Senna or MS?" Have my reply there, go check it out

sweetride01

My friend came over from England and couldn't believe I drove a car with a 2.5L engine (325iS)... in England, there are cars with .8L engines.
Thats what happens when gas costs $6+ a gallon.

sweetride01

BMW can compete. They are smart about it though. They are leaving room for improvement. It's not like there will be $30K Acuras and BMWs and Audis with 450hp in ten years time. There reaches a point where there's too much power involved, and too much danger to other motorists and pedestrians. Sooner or later, each price range of cars will reach a "horsepower limit".

Viscum48

HP wars were started not only by car makers but also (perhaps predominatly) by consumers demanding more power. Ray and Tom of the Car Talk show on the NPR radio have been arguing for a few years that HP levels (or, more importantly HP/weight) in new models are spiraling out of control. As the highest still reasonable level for street cars, they proposed the HP/lb ratio of ~0.06.

Here are a few examples of the HP/lb ratios:
TSX 6M: 0.0619; TSX 5A; 0.0603; RSX Type S: 0.0758; RSX 160HP 5M: 0.0594; Integra (142HP): 0.0540; 325Ci Coupe (184HP): 0.0576; ES330: 0.0650; G35 (coupe): 0.0803; Legacy Wagon GT: 0.0745

These values are based of course on maximal power (i.e., near maximal rpm), while ACTUAL power output depends on rpm a driver uses. Those who drive AT or shift at 3000 rpm may think they need more power, while in fact they are not using the power they already have. In Tsx, 3k makes only ~85 HP. Around 4.2k, Tsx makes ~ 120 HP, but this number is still only roughly equal to the actual power output of ... Toyota Corolla driven at the same rpm (nominally 130 HP max).
The Honda/Acura high revving engines, however, can get quickly much closer to their max power - just upshift at higher rpm and downshift for manouvers . I suspect that most people are not using their gears because ...high rpms make more noise. But then they should not complain about insufficient power but rather about inadequate comfort.