Sorry to be a post whore tonight, just thought of several questions. When I was getting my car, the salesman pointed out how Acuras in general were over engineered for quality - blah blah blah. For those who have experience with Acuras in the past, do you think this car is engineered to an extent so as to accomodate say a turbo or supercharger without other major (expensive) modifications? I can't afford to do it now, but someday it would be nice to really push this car to its limits. Seems like old integras were always getting souped up when I was in high school (prolly the early days of rice).

 

I think the chassis can handle more horsepower, as long as you put better tires on the car. Otherwise all you will get is more wheelspin.

 

I don't think you would be able to run very much boost safely (thinking of long-term reliability) on this motor with the stock 10.5:1 compression ratio. To really run any serious power and maintain reliability you would need to rebuild with lower compression pistons and while you were at it you'd might as well put in strong rods, internals, etc.

But I'm not a K engine expert. To find out what the engine is capable of, I would suggest checking out the RSX forums.


A neat project might be a de-stroking with K20A parts. That might lower the CR also, and also raise the rev ceiling by keeping the piston speeds lower (less stroke = lower piston speeds = higher rev capabilities). There are lots of possibilities with the K engine.

 

The RSX's run the cybernations Stage I with 8lbs of boost on stock internals with an 11.0:1 pretty well.

 

You would also definately need some better brakes.

 

i don't think acura's are over engineered, can't think of any particular acura model that ever was? (trannys dying and so-so brakes don't give impression of over engineering) As already mentioned, the high compression of the engine limits the amount of boost you can run and i would be wary of the tranny in the car as well and definitely upgrade in brakes if you are going to make the car faster.... The engine was not designed to take FI applications and a lot of work ($$$) would have to be done to go the FI route for serious gains...

on a side note, the most over enginneered engiens i can think of are generally toyota's, especially the older turbo engines 3S-GTE..those things can take insane amounts of power on stock internals... you have supras running around putting out excess of 700whp on stock internals and minimal upgrade on trannies.. less extreme examples are how the V6 and V8 engines all have factory warrantied Superchargers available and even the 1.8L 1ZZ-FE in the base celica and corollas have TRD superchargers available... when the factory have warrantied superchargers for their cars that are straight boltons with no other work needed says a lot about how confident the manufacture is in their products and how "over" engineered they are.

 

There have been examples of people running insane amounts of boost (NOS) on cavalier engines and the internals can handle it. SO I guess those engines are over engineered too?

 

GM have very durable engines... they are not "high" tech but very durable which is great for boosting... for boosting for gains and reliability i would go with GM no problem (just look at the LS1).... you hear a lot more Honda engines blowing up than GM ones.. and lastly, you can't equate (NOS) usage's effects on drivetrain compared to Turbo/SC... NOS is a rarely used power boost for racing, hence most of the time, the stress it puts on the drivetrain is very short in duration and realistically people with NOS don't use it all the time...a bottle lasts for about under a minute..and a bottle would last people on avg a week...so 60secs a week of stress on the engine vs all the time for Turbo/SC, so its harder to tell the effects on the engine..Turbos and SC's power gains are always there to stress the drivetrain which gives a better indication of the "over engineering" in the engine..its common sense when you think about it....

 

I never thought I would see durable and GM in the same sentence. But if someone was going to type it, I guess it should be Gilbo. Although I agree with the LS-1 being reliable, its a V8 and I have no doubt GM can build a good V8 engine. But show me some stats that prove Honda engines blow up more than GM engines?

I seriously doubt you'll find any. Americans' could'nt make a 4 banger if the blueprints for Honda 1.8L hit them in the face.

 

they can't make 4 cylinders with the same hp/liter as japanese ones... but that doesnt mean their engines are not durable.... browsing around msg boards...acura/honda and j-body ones... a lot more honda/acura cry about their engines blowing up than GM ones... .. gm makes generally sh!tty cars but their engines are definitely able to take FI with minmal work....

besides we had a nice discussion earlier on the board about how Malibu is more reliable than a civic and Buick's are more reliables than Accords/Camrys

 

I don't disagree with your entire premise. However just because GM tends to use low technology(low compression ration, iron blocks) which is good for boost doesn't mean they are more reliable than any other motor. Just means they are using dinosaur technology which holds up better under unintended stresses. It also means in stock form they generate much less power. I know this is a discussion about boost, but still had to throw in my two cents.

 

I never took part in that thread. How about a link?

And again, since when is a GM 4 cylinder durable? I'm having a really hard time believing that one. A GM V6 or V8 I can see being durable but not a 4.

 

i agree but the original post was about holding up under unintended stress(from FI) and in this case a GM engine would hold up better and be more "reliable" with the stress b/c its design is better for it than the high revving, high compression DOHC engines... i'm not saying overall they are better or more reliable in stock form..but for FI applications they would be more ideal and hold up better. but GM and Ford engines have very good relaiblity track records despite what a lot of import owners think...its the other parts that drag the whole car down reliabilty wise.

 

kind of funny you mention the cavalier.
my brothers friend had a cav with the gay race package, then he did some engine work and through on a nice bodykit and rims.
and one day he said he was going to get NOS installed. which was hilarious for that peice of shit.
first day he had the NOS, he took it down 14th (a main road) and tried a shot of NOS, it blew every peice of his engine around the compubstion area out, and dented his hood. it looked like the hood almost had a hole ripped through it.
anyways, he got the NOS taken out, repaired his engine and sold the thing.
he know has a 350Z stock and is respectful to it without mods.

 

a lot of idiots and riceshops have no idea how to install a NOS system correctly and safely... browsing around message boards, it is scary the amount of misinformation that is out there and these idiots are giving advice to others too..... but if he just wanted straight line speed...his crapalier with a 75shot of NOS can take out a lot of RSX-S and such though.

 

What I read was in a magazine a couple years ago and they basically took a bunch of cars and just kept adding more and more NOS. The GM was able to take insane amounts of boost. I guess the reason for this is, as gilbo says, is a more "low tech" engine. I'm talking about iron blocks, low compression, etc. This will all play well with FI compared to high compression, aluminum block, etc.

Now this in no way proves that GM's are more reliable. although I will say that the GM's I have owned I drove into the ground and the engines would simply not die. I put 300,000 km om my last POS GM and everything else broke, power features, fuel pump, rad, etc. But the dam engine would not die. (all the gms i've had were v6 ). That's been my experience anyways.

 

How about them over engineered brakes... they blew it on that one.

 

... and possibly ...the tranny as well.

 

Yes, brake fade is a reality that imposes itself with the TSX. I've had to transform my TSX in an emergency car last weekend (trust me, the reasons are right), and after a few brakings from 200-225 down to 160-150, the pedal really started feeling stiff, and the brakes weren't nearly gripping as much as they should have.

That was on a 20 minute race to the Hospital in MTL.