oil burners- mostly German cars

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Get real !


I think you are the one detached from reality. You were given plenty of examples, but then you try and find a difference. Like in the latest reply to Overkill you even insist on the oil requirement to be identical in order to make a comparison.

You're being obtuse in order to win the argument.

Did Honda ever make a mass produce V8 that revved to 8000 rpm?
Did Honda ever make a wankel engine making 180hp/L?
Did Honda ever make an inline 6 engine that would compare to BMW?

See, two can play those games. And by the same metric you use, Honda is clearly incapable of designing and producing such engines.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

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.


Originally Posted By: Wikipedia

S50B30
The S50B30 is a 2,990 cc (182 cu in) higher output version of the M50 which powered the E36 M3 (except in the USA. Canada had a limited production run of 45 cars with the S50B30 engine). Engine management is provided by a Bosch Motronic M3.3 ECU with a separate "VNC" Vanos control unit providing fully variable single camshaft adjustment on the intake side. It produces 210 kW (282 hp), has a bore of 86 millimetres (3.4 in) and a stroke of 86 millimetres (3.4 in), and a compression ratio of 10.8:1.[7] The limited edition "M3 GT" model from 1995 had different camshafts and a redesigned sump and oil pump, and produced 216 kW (294 PS; 290 hp) .

Applications:

1992-1995 E36 M3 (except for USA)


Car & Driver is wrong. So are you. I'm done arguing as I already stated. Your fixation on these minuscule variances/design choices so that Honda can "win" is simply absurd.

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
There are ample evidences that Honda engineers can design engines that are much more powerful than anybody, BMW included.


BMW powered the McLaren F1 (as well as other exotic supercars). Honda hasn't powered anything of that calibre, therefore they must be incapable of doing so. BMW is better than Honda. See, I can make ridiculous statements too.

How many people on this board do you think agree with your position? Do you hear those crickets? Exactly.
 
Has anyone mentioned the oil burners powered by the Mitsubishi engines? I still come across old Dodge minivans painting the skies blue.
 
Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Get real !


I think you are the one detached from reality. You were given plenty of examples, but then you try and find a difference. Like in the latest reply to Overkill you even insist on the oil requirement to be identical in order to make a comparison.

You're being obtuse in order to win the argument.

Did Honda ever make a mass produce V8 that revved to 8000 rpm?
Did Honda ever make a wankel engine making 180hp/L?
Did Honda ever make an inline 6 engine that would compare to BMW?

See, two can play those games. And by the same metric you use, Honda is clearly incapable of designing and producing such engines.

What in the "Apple to Apple" comparison that you don't understand ?

Show me any BMW normally aspirated engine in the range of 3 to 3.5L engine produced around 1991-1995 that were US street legal that matched 1191 Accura NSX 3L engine ? Yes, I gave BMW 4-5 years to catch up with Honda, because Honda was way ahead in term of power density of normally aspirated piston engine.

Show me any BMW normally aspirated engine in the range of 2 to 2.5L engine produced around 2000-2005 that were US street legal that matched 2000 Honda S2000 2L engine power density ? Again, BMW are playing catch up ten years later and still could catch up to Honda 120HP/L after 15 years.

If Wankel engine is so wonderful why Mazda didn't install it in every vehicle in current production ?

Of all 2015 Mazda vehicles how many have Wankel engine ?

Of all the world car manufactures how many do Wankel engine ?

Some choose to go with I6 some choose to do V6, engine configuration is irrelevant, engine power with the same emission control is what is count.

You need to look at dictionary for definition "Apple to Apple" comparison !

Did BMW had and currently have normally aspirated engine I4 in the range of 2.0L to 2.5L available in some vehicles for sale in North America ? What is the power of those BMW engines ? More than 240HP that Honda did 15 years ago in the S2000 ?

Do you understand compare "Apple to Apple" now ?

All of Overkill examples/numbers for BMW engines are not US street legal, therefore they are not qualified to compare with a street legal vehicle.

If you don't know emission control robs engine power substantially (you should do a search about it), that why some BMW engines in Europe have much higher power than US counterpart.
 
Originally Posted By: OVERKILL

Wikipedia said:
S50B30
The S50B30 is a 2,990 cc (182 cu in) higher output version of the M50 which powered the E36 M3 (except in the USA. Canada had a limited production run of 45 cars with the S50B30 engine). Engine management is provided by a Bosch Motronic M3.3 ECU with a separate "VNC" Vanos control unit providing fully variable single camshaft adjustment on the intake side. It produces 210 kW (282 hp), has a bore of 86 millimetres (3.4 in) and a stroke of 86 millimetres (3.4 in), and a compression ratio of 10.8:1.[7] The limited edition "M3 GT" model from 1995 had different camshafts and a redesigned sump and oil pump, and produced 216 kW (294 PS; 290 hp) .

Applications:

1992-1995 E36 M3 (except for USA)

You're talking about non-US street legal engines, even you already know that Europe engines with relax emission control have much higher power than the one must pass US emission.

At the year Honda introduced NSX with 90HP/L what was the best normally aspirated piston engine that BMW could muster at that year ? More than 90HP/L ? Again, US street legal only.

At the year Honda introduced S2000 in 2000 with 120HP/L what was the best normally aspirated piston engine that BMW could muster at that year ? More than 120HP/L ? Again, US street legal only.

Did BMW produce any normally aspirated piston engine in the size of 2L to 2.5L the last 20-25 years ? Do BMW currently making 2L normally aspirated piston engine ? What are the power of those I4 engines ? After 15 years did BMW can muster more than 110HP/L for those engines to catch up with Honda ?
 
You remind me of the riceboiz from maybe 10-15 years ago, screaming about HP/L while driving their Hondas with the torched springs and 6" exhaust tips.
 
Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
If Wankel engine is so wonderful why Mazda didn't install it in every vehicle in current production ?

Of all 2015 Mazda vehicles how many have Wankel engine ?


The same can be said about Honda. If 9000RPM rice burners with 120hp/L are the answer, why isn't Honda putting them in in their entire lineup?

And how many in all 2015 Honda vehicles, have 120hp/L, 9000rpm engines?


Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Did BMW had and currently have normally aspirated engine I4 in the range of 2.0L to 2.5L available in some vehicles for sale in North America ? What is the power of those BMW engines ? More than 240HP that Honda did 15 years ago in the S2000 ?


You simply don't get, do you? BMW and everybody else for that matter is not "catching up" to Honda because they and Honda themselves realized that the market for such engines is extremely small. Chasing hp/L in a normally aspirated engine is a fools game because it requires sky high RPM, and leaves the engine with pitiful torque in the low to mid range RPM. Those engines only make sense in racing and motorcycles, not street driven cars. This is especially true for the NA market, where the driving public is used to bigger engines with good torque down low.
That is why Honda and Mazda abandoned these types of cars and others chose not to go into that niche or at least stay out of NA market. Hence BMW examples were only sold in Europe because BMW simply did not believe Americans would buy cars equipped with these engines. And surprise, surprise, they were right.
 
Last edited:
If you want apples to apples, compare the current Honda CBR1000RR (which I own) to the current BMW S1000RR. In '09 the NA BMW was 197hp/L

The Honda isn't.
 
By the metrics touted in this thread, neither Honda nor BMW have any skill or ability when it comes to designing&building for power density.

BobaMotoring makes 11xxbhp from 2 litres displacement with engine speed in the single kRPMs - most other manufacturers must be incapable, right?
 
Comparing engine performance of various manufactures is like Boxer vs Boxer. There are many weight classes and rules that boxers must comply. Do you ever see a fight between 150 lbs boxer with 230 lbs boxer ? Did you ever see a boxer follow the fighting rules and the other is allowed to do whatever he wants like kicking or using machete ?

You guys truly don't understand the advance in car's engine design, or refuse to acknowledge the advance of Honda engines.

I'm talking about normally aspirated piston engines that meet US emission control for use on US street in light duty vehicles such as car, SUV, PU ... , don't try to compare non-compliance engine with compliance engine, it isn't Apple to Apple, and don't try to find excuses for the inability of any other car manufacture, BMW included, of not being able to match Honda ability at the time. If there was a best of German engines that closely match or pass the standards set by Honda in 1991 and 2000 show it. Which manufacture, model and year ?

Back in 1991 Honda made 90HP/L with 8k redline for NSX engine. At that time did any German engine approach that benchmark ? How many years later for the best German engine to match the standard set by Honda ? No German engine could produce 80HP/L and/or rev to 8k many years later. Back then every German manufacture claimed that they choose not to design an engine with that high rev because it wasn't reliable, also peak power at high RPM isn't usable for every day driving. Yes, almost 10 years later there were some German engines did match Honda standard of 80HP/L and rev to 8k.

When the best of German engine did match the 1991 Honda standard, Honda set new standard with 120HP/L with 9k redline engine in 2000 S2000, was there a German engine came close to that new standard ?

Again, German manufactures choose to not make engines with that power at that time, but many years later they did manage to make engine rev to 8.5k and higher. Yes, German engines did manage to pass 90-95HP/L in 2000 but didn't manage to pass 100-105HP/L until many years later and so far non passed 120HP/L.

Below are some articles from various magazines and video comparing 1991 NSX and 2000 S2000 with various competitors.

1990 C&D magazine
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...comparison-test

Quote:
In Europe, where the famous labels first became famous, Ferrari, Lotus, and Porsche have always meant speed. Traditionally, Europe was the only source of Eroticars. Upstart Honda is introducing the NSX, to be sold as an Acura in the U.S. Chevrolet has stepped up with its Corvette ZR-1. Do they belong on the list? The time has come to check credentials again, round up all the players and see where they really stand.

First Place NSX: If you made up a list of mandatories for your Eroticar, then drove an NSX, you'd swear that Honda had snuck a peak at your list.

You'd specify a brilliant engine, one with big power and nice noises and a redline as high as a phone number. The NSX's V-6 is exactly that. It's terrifically flexible around town at 1500 rpm, and it just gets stronger and stronger all the way to eight grand. The music it makes as it climbs would be a hit on CD.
Honda revitalized the motorcycle market in the sixties and reshaped the small-car market in the seventies. Now it's going to teach the world how to build Learjets for the ground.



2008 C&D magazine.

http://www.caranddriver.com/features/most-fun-for-25000-199194-acura-nsx-page-3

Quote:
As a testament to just how far Honda pushed the envelope with its 1991 Acura NSX, compare it with the most sophisticated machinery of today. That first NSX’s 3.0-liter V-6 made 270 horsepower and revved gloriously to its 8000-rpm redline. Almost 18 years later, BMW’s direct-injection 3.0-liter (in the Euro-only 330i) makes 268 horsepower.

The NSX’s lightweight aluminum sheetmetal surrounds a fascinating 3000-pound wedge that still looks fresh today (if you don’t count the tiny 15- and 16-inch wheels). Combined with first-rate comfort and ergonomics, and a docile, aluminum-intensive unequal-length control-arm suspension, it’s easy to see how the NSX quickly won our hearts as well as a distinguished victory over a Porsche 911, a Corvette ZR-1, and a Ferrari 348ts in a 1990 comparison test.


http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/...omparison-tests

C&D Aug 2003: 2003 Audi TT vs.BMW Z4, Honda S2000, Nissan 350Z, Porsche Boxster

Fourth Place: 2003 BMW Z4 3.0, Third Place 2003: Porsche Boxster and First Place: Honda S2000.

2003 BMW Z4 is a new design to replace 2000 Z3, Z4 had 3 I6 engines(2.5L 2.8L and 3.9L) available in 2003 3 years after Honda introduced S2000 in 2000. 3 years(with much improve computing power) to catch up with Honda but did BMW manage to ? Did BMW 3L engine beat Honda 2L engine in a race track ?

Quote:
BMW Z4: Sports cars are supposed to be individualists. This one never misses an opportunity. All the gauges are crammed onto two tunneled dials. The tunnels seem to line up with Uranus instead of your gaze. The numbers on the speedo are sized like the fine print on a leasing contract. The Ultimate Squinting Machine!

That said, the record shows that the Z4 makes bigger numbers on the test track than any of the others, if only by a shade. The 5.3-second 0-to-60 squeaked ahead of the Honda by 0.1 second and out front of the Nissan by twice that. The quarter-mile blurs past in 14 seconds flat, again 0.1 second ahead of the Honda.

Honda S2000: This is a scalpel-quick sports car when you keep it boiling, quickest of the bunch around the BeaveRun road course, barely behind the Z4 in acceleration, even though it gives away a full liter of displacement. Think intensity. Think fury.


An I6 3L BMW engine beat I4 2L Honda engine by a whopping 0.1sec to 60MPH and 1/4 mile. BMW should be applauded for this achievement(who cares about 2 extra cylinders and 1L extra displacement that BMW has in Z4, also who cares about BMW Z4 costs $12,000 more than S2000 ?)



S2000 I4 2L vs Z4 I6 3L vs Boxter S Boxer 6 3.2L vs 350Z V6 3.5L vs Crossfire V6 3.2L vs SLK55 AMG V8 5.5L.

The fastest qualify lap started at the rear, slowest started at the front. Boxter S started on second position, Z4 started at third position and S2000 started on 5th position.

SLK55 AMG out-classes every car with its 5.5L engine, Crossfire V6 3.2L was out-classed by every car.

Within 10 seconds S2000 was death last, but it passed Z4 before end of 1st lap.

If the staring lineup was based on qualifying lap then Boxter S(with 3.2L engine) could not finish second place.

How good was 2L engine in the S2000 ? It can keep up with the big boys with up to 50-60% more displacement.

If BMW engines were as good as Honda engine then Z4 with I6 2.5L should beat S2000 with I4 2.0L, 25% more displacement is similar to 187 lbs boxer vs 150 lbs boxer. BMW 225 lbs boxer couldn't beat Honda 150 lbs boxer(225 lbs is 50% heavier than 150 lbs, similar to 3L engine vs 2L engine).

For someone who think Wankel engine is better than piston engine watch this video.
 
You remind me of the riceboiz from maybe 10-15 years ago, screaming about HP/L while driving their Hondas with the torched springs and 6" exhaust tips.

HP/L matters only if cars are taxed by engine displacement (like in Japan and Europe), or in a displacement-limited racing class. That's it.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
You remind me of the riceboiz from maybe 10-15 years ago, screaming about HP/L while driving their Hondas with the torched springs and 6" exhaust tips.

HP/L matters only if cars are taxed by engine displacement (like in Japan and Europe), or in a displacement-limited racing class. That's it.

Did you read my post above ?

HP/L tells you how advance the engine is at the time it was designed. HP/L complied with tough US emission control is even harder to do.

Stock vs stock no modifications were done for any car in those comparisons/tracks. Which one came out winner ? BMW Z4 with I6 3L or Honda S2000 I4 2L ?

If you have any data/fact that BMW Z4 I6 3L win a race against Honda S2000 in 2004-2005 (stock vs stock) please post.

With an extra 2 cylinders and extra 1L displacement but still could not convincingly win a race against smaller engine what is that tell you ?

How about Porsche Boxster ? A well known affordable sport car from a well respect German manufacture to compete with a smaller engine with 2 less cylinders from a car manufacture knowns for econobox cars. On some tracks Boxster S won, on some other tracks(1 of those tracks is showed in my post) S2000 won. A 6-cyl 3.2L engine in car designed for performance should win every race by a large margin against a 4-cyl 2L engine car, otherwise is a failure.

For the sake of "Apple to Apple" comparison, Honda S2000 should be used to compare with other cars with engine no larger than 2.3-2.5L, just like boxing with weight class.

If you like, you find a stock 2004 Z4 with 6-cyl 2.5L engine to race my 2004 S2000 in stock form at any race circuit in lower 48 states in summer, the winner take all.

The 2.5L is 25% larger than 2L, similar to 187 lbs boxer vs 150 lbs boxer. Both cars will wear same tire brand and model such as Michelin Supper Sport, with OEM wheel.

If you think Honda S2000 engine is over-hyped, 240 HP 4-cyl is useless such that Z4 2.5L can beat it on any race circuit, do you accept my challenge ?
 
Last edited:
The Honda S2000 engine is an interesting engineering exercise. It's not much else. Even Honda realized that HP/L isn't everything...then stroked the S2000's engine to 2.2 litres (with no HP increase) in 2004.

The one Lightning Lap that featured an S2000 (2008), it managed to cook its brakes after two laps. It was bested by suck fearsome track machines as the Hyundai Genesis 3.8 coupe and the Chevy Cobalt SS, and was trounced by the Porsche Cayman and the Lotus Elise.

Also note that the S2000 is, itself, a notorious oil burner!

HP/L matters only if cars are taxed by engine displacement (like in Japan and Europe), or in a displacement-limited racing class. That's it.
 
Pretty much. Where are Honda's super high hp/l engine to be found today? The moment turbochargers came back on the scene, they all went back to the dark corners they came out of.

The appearance of the WRX and EVO in the US shut the door for peaky high hp/l engines. The S2000, NSX, RSX Type-S, RX-8, Focus SVT, and all other performance minded vehicles pushing a small displacement, high specific output engine watched their sales spin down the toilet, and the prestige descend to mediocrity.

These days, there are no more players left out there that are not either rocking punched out displacement or forced induction.

Cars like the BRZ/FT that have attempted to resurrect the small-engine N/A game have paid the price.

Taxes abroad, and shyness toward turbos in the US were the only two things that allowed such engines to enjoy an era.
 
Hp/litre is an interesting metric, but not one that many people care about.

Some people are interested in torque.

Some want hp/lb or hp for package size.

Most people are interested in the total package.

There is no doubt that Honda has been a great engine manufacturer for 30 years, but this debate is pointless. I would enjoy an S2000, but when it was new I would have preferred an M3. Now I might prefer a 10 year old S2000 over a 10 year old M3.
 
Why exactly are you drawing a comparison between two fruits from different trees? Aside from sharing a concept, the S2000 is nothing like its German counterparts. They focused more on luxury and comfortability, while Honda.......built a Honda.

But since you feel the BMW Z4 is an appropriate comparison; could you please direct me to where I might drive a 2016 Honda S2000? I've driven the 2016 Z4 already. I'd like to compare them back-to-back.
 
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle


HP/L matters only if cars are taxed by engine displacement (like in Japan and Europe), or in a displacement-limited racing class. That's it.



You forget that it also matters to people who appreciate good engineering - a cheap digital watch keeps time more accurately than a Breitling, Omega, Longines etc but we all agree that one is a much better engineered piece of kit than the other.

You also didn't mention that HP/L also matter to people who want a dynamic and enjoyable driving experience - allow me to use a sensationalist example to illustrate my point ;

An 80s 5.0 V8 Mustang made 200ish HP, and weighed how many hundred pounds?
A 2000s hatchback with a 2.0 4 cylinder makes 200ish HP but weigghs less than half of the big v8 lump,

Meaning that HP/L not only makes for better fuel economy and displays a better engineered vehicle but also allows better packaging solutions, means you can have more power for your particular engine and most importantly is an important and useful way of making fair (er). Comparisons between dissimilar cars
 
Originally Posted By: Olas


An 80s 5.0 V8 Mustang made 200ish HP, and weighed how many hundred pounds?
A 2000s hatchback with a 2.0 4 cylinder makes 200ish HP but weigghs less than half of the big v8 lump,



Those are on opposite sides of the spectrum. The best engines for me are somewhere in between, with enough torque from idle to be able to drive in top gear, but not running out of breath too soon. Where the max torque or max HP is made in the rpm range is of less significance. If you can have that in a light and compact package, it's even better. If the engine is also durable and reliable, that's excellent.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Jetronic
Originally Posted By: Olas


An 80s 5.0 V8 Mustang made 200ish HP, and weighed how many hundred pounds?
A 2000s hatchback with a 2.0 4 cylinder makes 200ish HP but weigghs less than half of the big v8 lump,



Those are on opposite sides of the spectrum. The best engines for me are somewhere in between, with enough torque from idle to be able to drive in top gear, but not running out of breath too soon. Where the max torque or max HP is made in the rpm range is of less significance. If you can have that in a light and compact package, it's even better. If the engine is also durable and reliable, that's excellent.


I agree that they are opposite ends of the spectrum, but I used the 'sensationalist example' disclaimer;
Durable and reliable are (supposedley?) why we buy cars from huge corporations rather than make our own, they should be fit for purpose no matter the specific output. I agree with your comments about a broad torque spread for lazy driving and a good enough head to keep making power too, but that only really takes compression and flow.

My main chain of thought that I keep going back to is this;
Regardless of HP/L, a car needs >100HP/Ton to feel like its moving so the vehicle weight dictates the power requirement - I'm 6'4 and don't want to be cramped, so if the required power can come from less displacement then the engine itself 'should' be physically smaller, giving me more legroom and putting less weight over the front axle for better handling.

Each to his own though, otherwise there would be no forum because we'd all d the same stuff and have nothing left to discuss
wink.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top