oil burners- mostly German cars

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Back in 1990 Acura NSX 3L V6 generated 270 HP for 90 HP/L with 8k redline, Porsche 911 engine at that time produced less than 80 HP/L, it took Porsche 6-7 years to get to 90 HP/L. I took BMW 17 years to get 3L engine, for European only market with not as stringent emission control as US, to make 270 HP.


1990:

BMW M3 (non-EVO): 2.0L, 189HP, 94.5HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO I): 2.3L, 197HP, 85.7HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO II): 2.3L, 217HP, 94.4HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO III): 2.5L, 235HP, 94HP/L

That's three BMW M3 examples, including the "plain Jane", that made more than 90HP/L in 1990. But I applaud you for your carefully worded statements slagging Porsche for not meeting the 90HP/L target but omitting BMW from that bullet and instead focusing on the 3.0L 270HP target instead because the 90HP/L number had already been met back in 1986 with the M3.

You take your Honda cheerleading seriously sir

The careful crafting of your above post demonstrates that.


Mercedes was a tick over 75hp a L in the 50's with their fuel injected I6 in the Gullwing.

The most power dense NA motor has to be the Jag I6, in race trim those things scream. I have seen full race 427's, big block Mustangs, and all sorts of American iron with gobs of HP unable to pull on them on straights.

Now every manufacture has a hard on for turbo's so they can mask poorly designed engines with more boost.

 

[fdcg27]

Originally Posted By: CaspianM
Originally Posted By: fdcg27
So you're under the mistaken impression that mainstream BMW and Mercedes cars aren't built to a price point?
Do you actually think that BMW and Mercedes build cars of the same quality as those they built twenty years ago?
Do you really believe that the performance differences between something like a base three series and a V-6 Accord are anything like as great as they were twenty years ago?

I am not really following your points in rel. to the topic for most part.
Every product is built to the price point hence a MB and an accord are like apple & orange. That was the point.
20 years ago?? Let me think...what is significance of that in our discussion?? At any rate..yes 20 years ago Japs were japs and inferior to MB, BMW and so forth. It is all relative. The question that whether or not cars like MBs have declined over the years in term of quality is a different talk and highly debatable. Don't get me wrong. I like all sort of cars and owned a bunch.


Since I was replying to your post, the relevance of what I wrote should be apparent.
The comparison of MB or BMW cars to Hondas is more like apples to apples when considering the FWD cars both German brands now offer.
There is also no question that the build and materials quality of German cars has suffered greatly over the past couple of decades.
Nothing debatable about it.
I too like and have owned all sorts of cars.
I'm of the opinion that many makers have compromised quality to achieve cost goals in recent years including DB and BMW.
Is anyone really willing to argue that any current Mercedes is built to the quality and durability levels of the old W123 or 124?
Would anyone care to defend the proposition that the current three series BMW is built to as high a standard as was the e30 or e36?
These are just a couple of examples.
You once got unquestioned durability, reliability and repairability in a higher class German brand to go along with the oil consumption and leaks.
That no longer seems to be the case although you still get the oil consumption and leaks.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

Would anyone care to defend the proposition that the current three series BMW is built to as high a standard as was the e30 or e36?


Not me; the interior of my wife's E90 shows much more wear than the cockpit of my E36(which has twice as many miles on it as well).

 

[chrisri]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

Back in 1990 Acura NSX 3L V6 generated 270 HP for 90 HP/L with 8k redline, Porsche 911 engine at that time produced less than 80 HP/L, it took Porsche 6-7 years to get to 90 HP/L. I took BMW 17 years to get 3L engine, for European only market with not as stringent emission control as US, to make 270 HP.


1990:

BMW M3 (non-EVO): 2.0L, 189HP, 94.5HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO I): 2.3L, 197HP, 85.7HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO II): 2.3L, 217HP, 94.4HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO III): 2.5L, 235HP, 94HP/L

That's three BMW M3 examples, including the "plain Jane", that made more than 90HP/L in 1990. But I applaud you for your carefully worded statements slagging Porsche for not meeting the 90HP/L target but omitting BMW from that bullet and instead focusing on the 3.0L 270HP target instead because the 90HP/L number had already been met back in 1986 with the M3.

You take your Honda cheerleading seriously sir

The careful crafting of your above post demonstrates that.


Mercedes was a tick over 75hp a L in the 50's with their fuel injected I6 in the Gullwing.

The most power dense NA motor has to be the Jag I6, in race trim those things scream. I have seen full race 427's, big block Mustangs, and all sorts of American iron with gobs of HP unable to pull on them on straights.

Now every manufacture has a hard on for turbo's so they can mask poorly designed engines with more boost.

Alfa Romeo 33 Stradale in 60s had 230hp from a 2 litre V8. That was actually conservative power output number, it was more in a range of 250, but since it was hand built every engine was different.

 

[CaspianM]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27

The comparison of MB or BMW cars to Hondas is more like apples to apples when considering the FWD cars both German brands now offer.
There is also no question that the build and materials quality of German cars has suffered greatly over the past couple of decades.
Nothing debatable about it.
I too like and have owned all sorts of cars.
I'm of the opinion that many makers have compromised quality to achieve cost goals in recent years including DB and BMW.
Is anyone really willing to argue that any current Mercedes is built to the quality and durability levels of the old W123 or 124?
Would anyone care to defend the proposition that the current three series BMW is built to as high a standard as was the e30 or e36?
These are just a couple of examples.
You once got unquestioned durability, reliability and repairability in a higher class German brand to go along with the oil consumption and leaks.
That no longer seems to be the case although you still get the oil consumption and leaks.


Apple and oranges in term of price I was referring to. We all are entitled to our experience & opinion. And I said I have had a bunch of cars to point out that I am not biased toward any brand. I love automobiles. Now if I were a rich man!!!

 

[fdcg27]

If I were a rich man, I'd probably have a fleet pretty similar to what I have now.
I'd just do less DIY.
Or maybe not.

 

[gregoron]

When I owned my 2000 Jetta 2.0, I initially went through 1 quart of oil per 1k miles. I decreased that to 1/2 qt after going VW 502 certified oils, OEM oil filters, changing the breather valve, and MAF. I just accepted the fact that burning oil on that Jetta was a "feature". I get to add 1/2 quart every 1k miles which help extend my OCI to 6k oil changes and 12k oil filter change.

My current 2014 GLI doesn't burn oil though at 10,500 miles now.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Back in 1990 Acura NSX 3L V6 generated 270 HP for 90 HP/L with 8k redline, Porsche 911 engine at that time produced less than 80 HP/L, it took Porsche 6-7 years to get to 90 HP/L. I took BMW 17 years to get 3L engine, for European only market with not as stringent emission control as US, to make 270 HP.

1990:

BMW M3 (non-EVO): 2.0L, 189HP, 94.5HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO I): 2.3L, 197HP, 85.7HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO II): 2.3L, 217HP, 94.4HP/L
BMW M3 (EVO III): 2.5L, 235HP, 94HP/L

That's three BMW M3 examples, including the "plain Jane", that made more than 90HP/L in 1990. But I applaud you for your carefully worded statements slagging Porsche for not meeting the 90HP/L target but omitting BMW from that bullet and instead focusing on the 3.0L 270HP target instead because the 90HP/L number had already been met back in 1986 with the M3.

You take your Honda cheerleading seriously sir

The careful crafting of your above post demonstrates that.

Mercedes was a tick over 75hp a L in the 50's with their fuel injected I6 in the Gullwing.

The most power dense NA motor has to be the Jag I6, in race trim those things scream. I have seen full race 427's, big block Mustangs, and all sorts of American iron with gobs of HP unable to pull on them on straights.

Now every manufacture has a hard on for turbo's so they can mask poorly designed engines with more boost.

I think comparison should be done on equal footing. The 3L V6 of NSX of 1991 generated 270 HP for 90 HP/L with passing US and especially tougher California Emission, so that it was street legal on all 50 US states.

If you do a search on engine power when US had the first emission laws in late '70 early '80, you will see that power of all engines dropped like flies. Some engine at that time had as little as 35-40 HP/L, even the Corvette engine was no more than 50-55 HP/L.

From 1991 till 1995 no engine(normally aspirated piston) in any vehicle sold in USA and CA had more than 90 HP and 8,000 RPM, may be an engine or two in a Ferrari could reach/surpass that power density. Less than 10 years later Honda established new standard(street legal in US and CA) with 240 HP 9,000 RPM mass produced normally aspirated piston engine in S2000. 120 HP with 9,000 RPM was more than Ferrari's hand made engines at that time. It took the best of exotic car manufactures(Ferrari, Lamborghini ...) more than 5-6 years to math it with expensive(cost more than 40-50k) hand-build engines

So, it is obvious that comparing any engine that didn't test/pass US and CA emission to one that did is not valid. It is similar to have a boxer in a ring with MMA(mixed martial arts). Boxer has to follow the boxing rules such as no use of legs, hitting below the belt is illegal. MMA can hit anywhere and allow to kick too.

Examples of BMW engines that had much more power in European street legal vehicles than US counterpart clearly show that to pass US emission the engines must be detuned. There wasn't any BMW engine sold in US and CA that had more than 90 HP/L until recently, more than 10 years after NSX introduction. And until now no BMW's normally aspirated piston engine could brake the barrier of 120 HP/L.

From these examples I can say that Honda engineer can design a much more powerful normally aspirated piston engine(that is in compliance with tough US and CA emission control without cheating likes VW) than BMW or Porsche or Mercedes or Audi or any other manufactures if they choose to do it.

Summary, comparison should be made with all requirements are met.

 

[chrisri]

So if Ferrari could meet power density of NSX or even surpass it then what's the fuss about it. I'm sure other could do it, but what's the point. There's no engine size penalties in NA AFAIK.

IMO Japanese horses are ponies because my 160 hp Civic was no match for Kadett GSI or Tipo Sedicivalvole. It was on pair with mk3 Gti. Just my opinion.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: chrisri
So if Ferrari could meet power density of NSX or even surpass it then what's the fuss about it. I'm sure other could do it, but what's the point. There's no engine size penalties in NA AFAIK.

IMO Japanese horses are ponies because my 160 hp Civic was no match for Kadett GSI or Tipo Sedicivalvole. It was on pair with mk3 Gti. Just my opinion.

As I said, Comparison should be made on equal footing: same year, same emission control, similar price point(mass produced vs hand-made that costs 4-5 times more is not equal footing).

Don't you know computing power is more than 10 times every 4-5 years ? This 10 times more computing help engines tremendously in every way, from fuel consumption to emission control to engine power. Ferrari took several years to match NSX power with helps from much more powerful ECU and with hand make engines which costs as much as entire NSX.

As I said, take any vehicle produced anywhere in the world that complied with US emission control at any time between 1991 and 1992-1993, compare it with NSX which one came out ahead ? Again, equal footing: normally aspirated piston engine or around 3 liters. Forward few years, any 2L normally aspirated piston engine produced anywhere in the world that passed US emission that had more power than Honda S2000 in the year 2000 ? Any normally aspirated piston engine can rev to 9000 RPM that passed US emission in the year 2000 ?

Remind you: only valid comparison is all parties must be on equal footings. Compare a car that spew crazy amount of toxic fumes to a car that must comply with US emission is not valid.

Should you go into a fighting with a knife while the other party has a machine gun ? Is this a fair fight ?

 

[chrisri]

OK, fair point. There was no other car from 91-93 that could meet NSX litre /hp output, and in the same time to be able to comply with strict Cali emission regulations.

But NSX wasn't a regular Honda as you've said before. If I remember correctly engines were hand built.

I understand your fascination with both NSX and S2000, they are truly masterpiece from engineering point. Back then NSX had highest piston speed of all road legal engines. So for that few years NSX was greatest entry level supercar, even better than a Ferrari. But you have to admit that in 95 355 made further step. And by all means NSX was not a cheap car to begin with.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
And until now no BMW's normally aspirated piston engine could brake the barrier of 120 HP/L.


Hopefully again this is within the context of "using US compliant emissions equipment" because I clearly cited two examples with far more than 120HP/L for two BMW engines earlier in this thread.

Quote:
Quote:
In full race trim, the naturally aspirated 2.3 L S14 engine produced approximately 300 hp (224 kW; 304 PS).[6] With the introduction of the 2.5 L evolution engine into racing in 1990, power increased to approximately 380 hp (283 kW; 385 PS).



Yes, that's 130HP/L and 152HP/L respectively wink

As noted in this post:

Originally Posted By: chrisri
So if Ferrari could meet power density of NSX or even surpass it then what's the fuss about it. I'm sure other could do it, but what's the point. There's no engine size penalties in NA AFAIK.


There is no engine size penalty in the US (or in Europe) so the drive for immense power density isn't there with these marques. And since Europe is BMW's home market it doesn't surprise me they didn't put more effort into making the early M3's US emissions compliant while retaining their Euro-spec power output.

Japan on the other hand has both displacement penalties and extreme emissions regulations, so for them, engineering for the US market really isn't, they just engineer for their home market and the vehicle is exportable "as is".

You and I have had this discussion before BTW, and I don't think we've ever come to an agreement. But my position has always been that it isn't a matter of engineering CAN, as noted above, BMW was rolling out 152HP/L engines in 1990. It is a matter of it making sense. There is no NEED to chase immense HP/L targets for US or Euro marques. If they have a HP target, they will reach it with the necessary displacement at a decent level of power density. There is no "need" to chase a peaky high-strung N/A target here, and so they don't. BMW used a 5.0L V8 for their 400HP target in the E39 and then a 5.0L V10 for the 500HP target in the E60.

There's no "magic" here. A 220HP S2000 isn't any faster than another 220HP roadster of the same weight. However, if that other roadster has more displacement and more torque, it would be a far less "peaky" car to drive than the S2000 is. I mean, you have one, you know it isn't a torque-laden engine, it is a car that needs to be wrung out and rev'd high to go anywhere, that's the nature of the beast. To some perhaps that's a desirable trait but for many, perhaps most, that loses its amusement quickly. That's a consideration for the OEM's here, that's why the Z8 existed, the 400HP/380ft-lb S62 in a little roadster was a rocket at "only" 80HP/L

When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When your focus is entirely on HP/L, you lose sight of the big picture which has a lot more to it, particularly when talking about a daily driver car here.

Even when considering the topic of "super cars", yes the NSX was a really "neat" car (and affordable). But the star from the 90's was the McLaren F1 fitted with its 6.1L BMW V12 delivering 627HP/480lb-ft (still "only" 103HP/L) and a top speed of 243MPH. Because even though it "only" had 103HP/L, less than the S2000, but more than the NSX, and cost massively more, it has a place in the record books. It was the fastest production car ever made for a significant time period, a title neither the S2000 nor the NSX had. Just like the E39 M5 was, despite its 80HP/L, the world's fastest sedan for quite a stint.

Also worth mentioning regarding these design compromises is that often "ability" is construed without the contemplation of design target. The S62 engine, which was fitted to the E39 M5 and the Z8 produced, as noted, 400HP/380lb-ft, and had a torque curve that was as flat as Utah. However that same engine when modified and fitted to the Ascari A10 makes 625HP. So obviously BMW intentionally limited the engine's output. This would have been due to their design targets as it obviously wasn't an engineering or ABILITY issue. The engine had the ABILITY to make 125HP/L, BMW CHOSE not to do that with it. Their target was a sedan that would do 190Mph, which they achieved with 400HP, there was no need and subsequently no reason to wring more power than that out of it, so they didn't.

 

[chrisri]

Actually there was engine size penalties in Portugal, Spain and Italy. They had specialities like E30 320iS, S14B20 with 2 litre and 192 hp. We called it Italian M .
Ferrari 208 was a 2.0 V8, specifically built for Italy. Alfa GTV was sold with 2.0 V6 turbo in these markets while ROW had 3.0.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Hopefully again this is within the context of "using US compliant emissions equipment" because I clearly cited two examples with far more than 120HP/L for two BMW engines earlier in this thread.

As I said, valid comparison is of equal footing. Fair fight is both parties have same equipment, not one with an Uzi and other with a knife. One engine complied with US emission, the other spewed awful ton of pollution that kills your lungs is not a valid comparison.

Power density is most importance part of a design, it tells you how good or not so good the engine was designed and engineered.

BMW didn't want to do it or unable to do it until 17 years later ? More like unable to design 3L that produce 270 until 2007 with help from tremendous CPU power of 17 years after 1990. And that engine was for European market only, not even available in US probably couldn't pass emission without cheating like VW.

As I said, Valid comparison is if 2 parties comply with all current laws in the same market. Show me a normally aspirated piston engine from BMW that produces more than 120HP/L, Honda did it in 2000 with 15 years old CPU power and 15 years later what BMW can make ? NONE !

You're defense on BMW behalf that they choose not to do it, my point is very clear that BMW incapable of matching Honda engine power. If they are capable to meet or surpass Honda engineers, show me the result, not rhetoric or any other nonsense.

Don't talk nonsense, show results ! (Also passing emission without cheating likes VW). Until you can show a specific engine in a specific BMW vehicle that was/is on sale in USA that can match Honda specific output of 120 HP per liter I am saying that BMW engines are as good as Honda's engines.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR


Power density is most importance part of a design, it tells you how good or not so good the engine was designed and engineered.


Nope, it isn't. And the fact that you obsess about this is key to us never agreeing. I would MUCH rather drive (and have) a 5.0L V8 with a "poor" power density that makes copious amounts of torque than some high-strung leaf-blower that makes the same HP but has to be rev'd to 9 grand to do it.

This is the part you either don't understand or completely ignore because of your bias.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
BMW didn't want to do it or unable to do it until 17 years later ? More like unable to design 3L that produce 270 until 2007 with help from tremendous CPU power of 17 years after 1990.


What? Are you forgetting the M3 examples already? The 1992 M3 made 282HP from a 3.0L I6. And this pretends we completely ignore the earlier Euro-only engines that were 90HP/L and above but were not 3.0L in displacement (another fixation point).

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
And that engine was for European market only, not even available in US probably couldn't pass emission without cheating like VW.


Yes, the 1992 M3 example (not 2007) was from the European only market. I can tell you are getting upset/worked up because you are misconstruing or misrepresenting what we've already discussed.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
As I said, Valid comparison is if 2 parties comply with all current laws in the same market. Show me a normally aspirated piston engine from BMW that produces more than 120HP/L, Honda did it in 2000 with 15 years old CPU power and 15 years later what BMW can make ? NONE !


Show me a 400HP V8 that Honda made in 1998. Wait, they didn't make one? Obviously they don't know how to make a V8! That's what you sound like here dude, this is getting ridiculous.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
You're defense on BMW behalf that they choose not to do it, my point is very clear that BMW incapable of matching Honda engine power. If they are capable to meet or surpass Honda engineers, show me the result, not rhetoric or any other nonsense.


Your ASSUMPTION that simply because a manufacturer CHOOSES not to produce high strung 4-bangers with high power densities means they are INCAPABLE of doing so is the only nonsense being peddled in this thread. The fact that you fixate on this singular point shows that you know very little about what goes into designing a vehicle with a satisfying driving experience.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Don't talk nonsense, show results ! (Also passing emission without cheating likes VW). Until you can show a specific engine in a specific BMW vehicle that was/is on sale in USA that can match Honda specific output of 120 HP per liter I am saying that BMW engines are as good as Honda's engines.


Show me all the supercar manufacturers that Honda sells engines to or that are based on Honda engines. Oh, nobody? I guess that means Honda is INCAPABLE of designing/manufacturing a Supercar engine right? Do you read what you post? We KNOW Honda is a world-class engine manufacturer. We KNOW BMW is a world class engine manufacturer. The fact that BMW CHOOSES not the chase the same HP/L target in their production engines is NOT an admission of incapability, it IS however a point that causes you to betray the facade of reasonable discourse you have donned in this thread and instead turned it into an HP/L fanboy fest, which is quite sad.

I'm out. I've said my piece, you can continue to speculate all you want, anybody reading this can easily see the bias in your posts clouding your ability to think about this in any manner that could be described as rational.

 

[KrisZ]

It's deja vu all over again. Mazda made 180hp/L Wankels for years. I guess Honda is not all that capable since they never made one.
The mighty Honda also never made anything with more than 6 cylinders. But hey, they can whip up one high revving 4 cylinder and one overpriced supercar and all of the sudden they are gods of automotive by virtue of nobody doing the exact same thing at the exact same time with the exact same number of cylinder, meeting the exact same emissions and probably all sorts of other made up on the fly "apple to apple" merits.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERKILL
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
BMW didn't want to do it or unable to do it until 17 years later ? More like unable to design 3L that produce 270 until 2007 with help from tremendous CPU power of 17 years after 1990.

What? Are you forgetting the M3 examples already? The 1992 M3 made 282HP from a 3.0L I6. And this pretends we completely ignore the earlier Euro-only engines that were 90HP/L and above but were not 3.0L in displacement (another fixation point).

Car&Driver stated very clear that "NSX engine was so advance, such that the first BMW 3L engine in a production street legal car that can make 270 HP was done 17 years later, and this engine was available in Europe only, not in North America" in one of their article I read online sometime ago. I will find that article and post here for you to dispute C&D claim.

Again and again, show me any US street legal BMW with an I6 engine that can make more than 90HP/L before 2005, 15 years after NSX. And 15 years after S2000 debut with 120HP/L which BMW engine can make that power density using conventional oil 10W30 ? NONE that I know of.

That why I am saying that BMW engineers were and are not as good as Honda engineers in term of engine design. At the very minimum Honda engineers never resort to exotic oil such as 10W60 to lube their engines like some of "Advanced BMW Engines". Honda engines do not even need synthetic oil to run in hot climate such as Arizona. So me 1 BMW engine doesn't need synthetic LLxx oil, not only synthetic is needed but have to be much higher quality than API to protect the inadequate engine design.

There are ample evidences that Honda engineers can design engines that are much more powerful than anybody, BMW included.

I also mentioned many times, compare apple with apple. Engine size with size, emission complied with emission complied. You can have 1,000 HP/L but not US street legal then it is just a junk engine.

 

[BRZED]

Someone loathes BMW. I loathe gibberish.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's deja vu all over again. Mazda made 180hp/L Wankels for years. I guess Honda is not all that capable since they never made one.
The mighty Honda also never made anything with more than 6 cylinders. But hey, they can whip up one high revving 4 cylinder and one overpriced supercar and all of the sudden they are gods of automotive by virtue of nobody doing the exact same thing at the exact same time with the exact same number of cylinder, meeting the exact same emissions and probably all sorts of other made up on the fly "apple to apple" merits.

To you 1 fighter is blind folded the other is not is a fair fight ? Both are fighters so that is fair ?

In a shoot out one is allowed a hand gun the other with an UZI is okay ? Both are gun so it is fair ?

Do you understand Apple to Apple comparison ? Or Orange to Apple is a good comparison because both are fruit ?

NSX 3L V6 was an engine avilable for sale in US, so was Manufacture X with 6L V12 is also an engine that is for sale in Africa without any emission control, so comparing these 2 engines is fair ?

Get real !

 

[gregoron]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
It's deja vu all over again. Mazda made 180hp/L Wankels for years. I guess Honda is not all that capable since they never made one.
The mighty Honda also never made anything with more than 6 cylinders. But hey, they can whip up one high revving 4 cylinder and one overpriced supercar and all of the sudden they are gods of automotive by virtue of nobody doing the exact same thing at the exact same time with the exact same number of cylinder, meeting the exact same emissions and probably all sorts of other made up on the fly "apple to apple" merits.

To you 1 fighter is blind folded the other is not is a fair fight ? Both are fighters so that is fair ?

In a shoot out one is allowed a hand gun the other with an UZI is okay ? Both are gun so it is fair ?

Do you understand Apple to Apple comparison ? Or Orange to Apple is a good comparison because both are fruit ?

NSX 3L V6 was an engine avilable for sale in US, so was Manufacture X with 6L V12 is also an engine that is for sale in Africa without any emission control, so comparing these 2 engines is fair ?

Get real !


The big question is, how many RWD high performance/sport touring and street legal cars did Honda make since 2005 and 2009 with the NSX and the S2000, respectively. Yes, they make great engines even today, but why did they take a sabbatical from putting it in rear-driven sports cars? What does that say to their loyal followers?

I don't see BMW, Mercedes, Subaru, or even Mazda taking a break from this tradition. Heck, even Toyota just got back to it with some help from Subaru.

Could it be that this segment of the car market is not really Honda's target? They'd rather focus on efficient front-driven cars, which they're good at by the way, because of profitability. You lose street cred and a loyal fan base that way. Oh yes, now they're thinking of getting back to their "roots" with the 2015 NSX.