Why the heck did they put a single overhead cam into our engine in the vtec version... and not a dual overhead cam... It would have given us more hosepower and torque.
The Honda s2000 has a rinkydink 4 cylinder... but it produces 200 HP!!! b/c of the dohc Vtec...
Let me know your views on this.
Thanks

 

The S2K has 240 hp actually.

Someone said b4 that if they gave us a 3.2L DOHC it would be too similar to their high performance car, the NSX. But I really have no idea why they didn't.

 

$$$$

 

Thats always pissed me off too...

We'd have more mod options too.

 

The Vtec in our cars is very advance, atleast in the 3.0.

the j30's have a 2 stage vtec.... the first stage activates the second pair of intake valves. keep in mind, only 2 intake valves are working during 0-3700 rpms. first stage is the second pair of intake valves opening, stage 2 vtec is the actual occurance popular to everyone as vtec, where the higher profile cam lobes are used.

for all other hondas and acuras, there is only 1 stage, and that is the valve lift stage previously described.

in europe there is a 3 stage motor, the d15.

 

This argument has been brought up several times and has been proven worthless. Our engine with headers makes nearly the same peak power numbers as the "other" Honda V6 with DOHC. Plus we make more torque at a lower RPM which is what you want from a commuter vehicle.

The reason they did it was to save cost and packaging. A DOHC motor takes up more room making the application more costly and difficult.

Then there is the matter of the engine its self. The extra valve train costs money and when Honda can get done with a SOHC engine it makes sense.

I personally have no problem with the valve train decision as it fits the intended purpose well.

 

and Space...have you seen the heads of an NSX motor? They are really wide. As far as bang for you buck it is easier to get power benefits from the tempermental intake side than the exhaust side. You only need VTEC on exhaust lobes to squeeze the last bit of power out of a setup.

 

Number one reason is cost.. plus, I've heard in the fast that SOHC engines have better low end power?? and DOHC is good for top end power. Since our car is so heavy, it would make more since to get more power in the low end, otherwise, our car will have a hard time getting off the line.. (not sure if this is true, but I know I've heard this from more than one person)

 

Jinx...

 

Ooops, I'm a little slow.. scalbert posted just before I did..

scalbert!!

 

all three of us were within a minute...

 

i own both cars, s2000 is far from a rinkydink 4cyl. it's fucking amazing. i'll gladly run any of you 6 speeders....

 

better gas mileage

 

Really?

On the SOHC/DOHC issue. Our overall motor is probably more advanced than the NSX. In fact, our engine makes pretty darn good power even for being SOHC. DOHC offers more tunability... more possible combination of intake vs. exhaust cam timing... valve-lift.. etc.

Remember that the original DOHC VTEC technology is from the '80s.... yes 80's. The NSX pioneered this in 1991 followed by the Integra GSR (b17A), then the B18C, B16A etc.

The new i-VTEC technology (RSX etc.) represents '90's innovation. Our SOHC motor is somewhere in between.

 

NSX is old tech, saying our motors are more advanced isn't that big of a deal.

 

I tell people my engine is only SOHC and some don't believe me. It is kinda dumb, but I guess Acura has to have a cheaper, less powerful, but still desirable car under the NSX. And what really makes the NSX so much quicker than our cars is not the DOHC, it's the weight!

 

ABreece I'd have to disagree...I'd call late model domestics with pushrod motors OLD, but not the NSX engine technology.

 

I have to disagree, the first DOHC motor was developed in 1912, hardly new technology... OHC and pushrod motors have been around for nearly the same amount of time.

 

Can the DOHC heads be put on the CL's 3.2?

 

Nope, the NSX is a C-Block like the Legend\RL not a J-Block CL\TL\MDX.

 

Ok thanks, that's what i figured.