Lexus engine design details

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
When Acura NSX was introduced in 1990 it had highest specific power per

liter (at 90 hp per liter) for normal aspirated reciprocating engine. Again in 2000

Honda S2000 produced 120 hp per liter and redline at 9000 rpm, both these numbers are

better than anyone else at that time, Ferrari and Porsche included. Not many

turbo/super charged engines at that year can generate 120 hp or more per liter.



In 1964 Ford introduced the 427 SOHC (7L). It made 657HP at 7,800RPM and a stump

pulling 575lb-ft of torque. This is 94HP/L.

In 1964 Ford also introduced the DOHC Indy "Cammer", a 255CID, 425HP, 8,000RPM Hilborn

injected V8 based on the 260. It made 103HP/L.

Both of these are almost thirty years before the NSX.

Only a year before these engines debuted did Honda enter the car market. This was with

the Honda T360, with its 30HP 356cc (84HP/L) engine and the T500, with its 38HP, 531cc

(71HP/L) power house. Both were DOHC screamers with 9,000RPM redlines. Not much has

changed at Honda in that respect.

Some of you guys make it sound like Ford and GM were making Stovebolts and Flathheads

for the last 50 years

 

[rationull]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

In 1964 Ford introduced the 427 SOHC (7L). It made 657HP at 7,800RPM and a stump

pulling 575lb-ft of torque. This is 94HP/L.

In 1964 Ford also introduced the DOHC Indy "Cammer", a 255CID, 425HP, 8,000RPM Hilborn

injected V8 based on the 260. It made 103HP/L.


Not that it changes the debate much, but to be fair those ratings are probably SAE gross ratings (right?), while the NSX's would be SAE net.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: rationull
Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

In 1964 Ford introduced the 427 SOHC (7L). It made 657HP at 7,800RPM and a stump

pulling 575lb-ft of torque. This is 94HP/L.

In 1964 Ford also introduced the DOHC Indy "Cammer", a 255CID, 425HP, 8,000RPM Hilborn

injected V8 based on the 260. It made 103HP/L.


Not that it changes the debate much, but to be fair those ratings are probably SAE gross ratings (right?), while the NSX's would be SAE net.


Yes, they are SAE GROSS (like everything else from that era including the cited Honda numbers) which of course does not take into effect how the engine will be fitted with things like an exhaust system, alternator....etc. Some even got completely different induction systems from what they were run at to get their "rating". This means that often the SAE GROSS numbers can be up to 30% higher than their NET counterparts.

However, the 427 SOHC was sold as you see it over the parts counter at a Ford dealer and could be a dealer-installed option in basically any Ford car it would fit in from that era. It was available in single or dual-quad config (the dual quad making the 657HP) and what you see is what you get, minus the addition of an alternator. We had one in a Thunderbird.

I'm honestly not sure how much power loss would have happened due to the addition of a full exhaust system and an alternator on this engine, but I'm thinking it is probably significantly less than 30%.

 

[RedCorvette]

Interesting, but when I had my first car, a 1989 Prelude, it had a 16v 2 liter dohc engine that produced 150hp. That engine was not new to the 1989 model. The car also had 4 wheel steering which meant it went through a slalom course faster than a Ferrari.

Fast forward to a Ford I purchased in 2004, it had a 24v 3 liter dohc engine which produced 200hp and handled like [censored].

 

[MrHorspwer]

I don't understand this urination contest.

I could go to a GM dealer and buy myself a 720+ HP LSX454R crate engine. It could be installed in any GM vehicle that it fit and I'm sure that, given enough money, find myself a dealer to install it there.

What's that got to do with the cost of tea in China? About the same as the engine in a Lexus.

In 1964 nobody had to worry about the EPA, 100+ octane leaded fuel was cheaply and readily available, and cars didn't have much of a warranty to void. Figure this, in 1964, Ford sold the Thunderbolt for $3,900. This would be a very typical car to install a cammer into. The cammer cost $2,300. The engine cost nearly as much as the car it was being installed in!

As cool as it was, the cammer was a ultimatly a failure for Ford. Even though they met homoligation requirements, NASCAR (the engine's intended venue) wouldn't let it race. It was also banned in certain NHRA drag racing classes. With no where to race, Ford abandoned the project.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
I don't understand this urination contest.

I could go to a GM dealer and buy myself a 720+ HP LSX454R crate engine. It could be installed in any GM vehicle that it fit and I'm sure that, given enough money, find myself a dealer to install it there.

What's that got to do with the cost of tea in China? About the same as the engine in a Lexus.

In 1964 nobody had to worry about the EPA, 100+ octane leaded fuel was cheaply and readily available, and cars didn't have much of a warranty to void. Figure this, in 1964, Ford sold the Thunderbolt for $3,900. This would be a very typical car to install a cammer into. The cammer cost $2,300. The engine cost nearly as much as the car it was being installed in!

As cool as it was, the cammer was a ultimatly a failure for Ford. Even though they met homoligation requirements, NASCAR (the engine's intended venue) wouldn't let it race. It was also banned in certain NHRA drag racing classes. With no where to race, Ford abandoned the project.


Pretty much. And why it was replaced with the BOSS 429. My point was that Ford, GM and Chrysler weren't off in the stone age building flatheads and stovebolts for the last 50 years, they had some pretty amazing engines that made a LOT of power, and the two examples I cited were probably on paper before Honda even made a car.

My comment was in regards to the statement made by the person I quoted, not the original post in this thread.

 

[HTSS_TR]

The 1964 Ford engines didn't count because they could not pass EPA smog check of the 80's and 90's.

Comparing NSX engine technology of 1990 to the best of the world around 1988 to 1992 is more appropriate. Tell me which car company in the world had normal aspirated reciprocating engine generate close to 90 HP per liter in around 1990. NONE I know of.

Tell me which car manufacture in the world had any normal aspirated reciprocating engine generate more than 110 HP per liter in 2000 and redline at more than 8500 RMP. Honda is the only company excesses those numbers with S2000, 120 HP per liter and redline at 9000 RPM.

In the engine technology, Honda doesn't take a back seat to any company, be it BMW or MB or Ferrari ... If they want too they can produce a reliable engine that produce more power per liter than anybody (and uses conventional oil 10W30 to boost, no exotic 10W60 as required by some exotic marques), they proved in the past with NSX and S2000, and they proved it in F1 of early to mid 80's.

 

[Shannow]

I don't think that those F1 engines would pass US emissions testing either.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
The 1964 Ford engines didn't count because they could not pass EPA smog check of the 80's and 90's.

Comparing NSX engine technology of 1990 to the best of the world around 1988 to 1992 is more appropriate. Tell me which car company in the world had normal aspirated reciprocating engine generate close to 90 HP per liter in around 1990. NONE I know of.

Tell me which car manufacture in the world had any normal aspirated reciprocating engine generate more than 110 HP per liter in 2000 and redline at more than 8500 RMP. Honda is the only company excesses those numbers with S2000, 120 HP per liter and redline at 9000 RPM.

In the engine technology, Honda doesn't take a back seat to any company, be it BMW or MB or Ferrari ... If they want too they can produce a reliable engine that produce more power per liter than anybody (and uses conventional oil 10W30 to boost, no exotic 10W60 as required by some exotic marques), they proved in the past with NSX and S2000, and they proved it in F1 of early to mid 80's.


Wait, so I can't use Ford's 60's examples (again, before Honda even made cars.... and both of those engines made more HP/L than Honda's offerings during that time period) because they don't meet the EPA smog requirements that didn't exist until 20 years after they were produced?

BUT, it is OK for you to cite a Honda F1 engine which wouldn't meet the same criteria?

Gotcha. You've got Honda on a pedestal.

Talk about strawmen.

FACT: Ford did it THIRTY YEARS earlier with V8 engines and NO VARIABLE CAM TIMING, STILL making over 100HP/L and spinning to over 8,000RPM (the 255 didn't make peak power until 8,000RPM).

Honda started off making motorcycle engines. It should be of no surprise to you that their cars contain essentially big motorcycle engines that rev, and make power like..... MOTORCYCLE ENGINES! And if we want to discuss motorcycle engines, then that brings Yamaha, Suzuki, BMW, Kawasaki....etc into the mix here too.

Why do you give so much weight to HP/L? This isn't LeMans, NASCAR, Top Fuel, Pro Stock...etc Many people don't need, nor do they WANT to rev their car to 9,000RPM to make power.

And I mention those racing venues because that's where HP/L actually becomes useful. If you have a displacement ceiling, then power density becomes important. One can gear for a given power band. But Honda doesn't compete in those racing venues despite your posturing regarding their untouchable HP/L capabilities because they don't make large displacement V8 engines.

And if Honda doesn't take a back seat to anybody, show me a STOCK Honda street car engine that will handle 1000+HP. RELIABLY. Ford has done it, Toyota has done it. The Termi and the Supra have the reputations they have because of this. Your 120HP/L, 9,000RPM S2000 is still only 240HP when buddy with his 900RWHP Termi rocks your doors off with his stock shortblock'd hair-dryer assisted 4.6L. But I guess you'll sleep better at night knowing it took boost for his 225HP/L to happen, right?

Reminds me of the guy at the drag strip with his little gutted Civic with a huge turbo on it, tightening his head bolts down with a breaker bar trying to get the head gasket to stop leaking because of how awesome his B-whatever swapped engine was because it made so much HP/L!

I guess the fact that it couldn't run with an N/A H/C/I Fox body was lost on him. Or he didn't care because even though he was tightening his head bolts and I'm sure his engine life was measured in passes, rather than hours, that he was rockin' the HP/L ceiling with his mad Honda powaz! So his 13-second timeslip with his gutted sled was pure glory!

This is the same reason my 4,000lb 4-door sedan is faster than the NSX AND the S2000 (in more than one way). I don't care that it makes less HP/L. It has a 400HP/390lb-ft V8. And the guy with the Mustang, Camaro, Challenger, Charger, 350Z....etc isn't going to care either, because his car is faster.

Honda is only untouchable in the minds of fanboys. The same guys running 13's with a turbo in their safety-impaired gutted Civic showing the world how awesome they are by puking their transaxles and crankcases all over the 60ft line.

EDIT: And to anybody else reading this, please do not take this as an attack on Honda motor company or the cars they produce. Their cars are generally reliable, fuel sipping as well as long lasting. This goes for the NSX as well. This is an attack on the mindset that the Japanese are the only innovators in engine development and that HP/L is the ultimate benchmark in how "good" an engine, or its manufacturer is.

 

[HTSS_TR]

My posts were to response to this "The Japanese have never been at the bleeding edge of technology"

BMW's Vanos and double Vanos are copied from Honda's VTEC ? Or Honda copied BMW's Vanos ?

Power per liter is a benchmark to judge how efficient an engine is. Honda can design very high power engine for pedestrian cars without expensive fluid and reliable too.

Honda's F1 engine produced more power than any F1 engine of any other team in the 80's and they finished the race more than anyone else, isn't it ?

I think it is correct to say "The Japanese have never been at the bleeding edge of technology until late 70's early 80's"

How many European(BMW, MB and Audi ...) engines had 4 valves before Toyota introduced Lexus LS400 in 1989 ?

If you want to compare a BMW with Honda S2000, you should compare BMW Z3 of the year 2000 with the first S2000 of the same year. Which one is better in every importance categories ? Acceleration, top speed, cornering force, lap time ...

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
My posts were to response to this "The Japanese have never been at the bleeding edge of technology"

BMW's Vanos and double Vanos are copied from Honda's VTEC ? Or Honda copied BMW's Vanos ?


Neither, VANOS varies camshaft timing (advancing and retarding the camshaft), and as I mentioned earlier, is a technology they borrowed from Alfa Romeo. It doesn't operate in any way similar to VTEC, which uses two separate sets of lobes with different profiles.

Quote:
Power per liter is a benchmark to judge how efficient an engine is. Honda can design very high power engine for pedestrian cars without expensive fluid and reliable too.


Just like every other motorcycle engine manufacturer

The difference is that Honda has taken that design methodology to car engines. Their competition doesn't make motorcycles with the exception of BMW.

Quote:
Honda's F1 engine produced more power than any F1 engine of any other team in the 80's and they finished the race more than anyone else, isn't it ?


I'm not sure what the question is here?

Quote:
I think it is correct to say "The Japanese have never been at the bleeding edge of technology until late 70's early 80's"


Define bleeding edge? The engines I cited from Ford both had overhead camshafts, lightweight internals....etc. Even fuel injection.

Quote:
How many European(BMW, MB and Audi ...) engines had 4 valves before Toyota introduced Lexus LS400 in 1989 ?


Well, that Ford engine from 1964 did

BMW? 1978 with the M88 and the S38. I don't know the history of MB or Audi, but I'm sure they had examples as well.

Quote:
If you want to compare a BMW with Honda S2000, you should compare BMW Z3 of the year 2000 with the first S2000 of the same year. Which one is better in every importance categories ? Acceleration, top speed, cornering force, lap time ...




Why the Z3? The Z8 was the "top model", like the S2000. But given that the M5, which weighed 1,000lbs more, still dominated the S2000 in every category, that same engine in a roadster chassis wouldn't be fair as a basis for comparison now would it?

 

[MrHorspwer]

The Alfa system that BMW used as a basis for VANOS was a mechanical system. The Alfa system did not use hydraulics (engine oil pressure) to alter the cam timing.

Another Japanese company, Nissan, was doing hydraulically actuated variable cam timing in the mid-80s. This was on the twin-turbo VQ V6 used in the 300ZX. This predates BMW's introduction of VANOS.

Also, another motorcycle company does play in the car field: Yamaha. They have been used in plenty of high performance projects. Toyota's 2ZZ engine, which is equipped with their VVTLi system (similar in fuction to Honda's iVTEC), was co-developed with Yamaha. Ford also worked with Yamaha on both the first and second generation SHO V6 and the third generation SHO V8.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Originally Posted By: OVERK1LL

Neither, VANOS varies camshaft timing (advancing and retarding the camshaft), and as I mentioned earlier, is a technology they borrowed from Alfa Romeo. It doesn't operate in any way similar to VTEC, which uses two separate sets of lobes with different profiles.

When did BMW have Vanos ? Before Honda VTEC ? Or is it the response to VTEC to improve engine performance ?

Quote:
Just like every other motorcycle engine manufacturer

The difference is that Honda has taken that design methodology to car engines. Their competition doesn't make motorcycles with the exception of BMW.

Then why didn't BMW applied motorcycles experience to car engines ? Why they waited for Honda introduced VTEC then came up to Vanos ?
Quote:
Honda's F1 engine produced more power than any F1 engine of any other team in the 80's and they finished the race more than anyone else, isn't it ?

Is it wrong to state that Honda F1 engines produced more power than any other F1 team in the '80's ? If I remember correctly, Honda 1.5L turbo charged engine produced more than 1100-1200 HP, too much more than anyone else at that time, there wasn't fair for other teams so that they dropped the turbo charged engines after few years.

Quote:
Define bleeding edge? The engines I cited from Ford both had overhead camshafts, lightweight internals....etc. Even fuel injection.

More power than anyone else while comply the EPA regulations in a pedestrian engines.

Quote:
Well, that Ford engine from 1964 did

BMW? 1978 with the M88 and the S38. I don't know the history of MB or Audi, but I'm sure they had examples as well.

Are they available in most, if not all, cars in showroom ? As far as I remember, most BMW, MB and Audi had 2 valve engines in 1989-1990, only specialty cars had 4 valves. It took them more than 4-5 years to have 4 valves engines in most cars. It seems European companies rested on their laurel for some time in late 70's to mid-late 80's, until LS400 and Q45 and NSX wake them up in early 90's

Quote:
Why the Z3? The Z8 was the "top model", like the S2000. But given that the M5, which weighed 1,000lbs more, still dominated the S2000 in every category, that same engine in a roadster chassis wouldn't be fair as a basis for comparison now would it?

Comparing a 4-cylinder engine in a mid $30k car with a V8 engine in a $80+ car is a fair play ? Even the 6-cylinder BMW Z4 could not beat the lowly 4-cylinder S2000.

Car&Driver: "The 2003 version of the Honda S2000 recently won a comparison test ("The Blow Dryers," August 2003) among such leading lights as the Porsche Boxster, BMW Z4, Nissan 350Z Touring, and Audi TT roadster. In case you hadn't noticed, some of those cars are newer than the Honda is."
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/honda-s2000-short-take-road-test

Do BMW has any 4-cylinder engine with displacement of around 2 liter produces more than 240 HP currently ? It had been 12 years since Honda had S2000 in 2000 and nobody can duplicate similar performance without resorting to turbo changed or super charged.

Do not look down to your competitors, be it Japanese or South Korean or Chinese, they may not be as innovative in some area but they try to learn from everybody and they may come up with new idea. The Japanese showed it in late 70's and early 80's.

I do have Honda S2000 also have LS400 and E430, so that I'm not a Honda fanboy. I only give credits where credit is due.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: MrHorspwer
The Alfa system that BMW used as a basis for VANOS was a mechanical system. The Alfa system did not use hydraulics (engine oil pressure) to alter the cam timing.

Another Japanese company, Nissan, was doing hydraulically actuated variable cam timing in the mid-80s. This was on the twin-turbo VQ V6 used in the 300ZX. This predates BMW's introduction of VANOS.

Also, another motorcycle company does play in the car field: Yamaha. They have been used in plenty of high performance projects. Toyota's 2ZZ engine, which is equipped with their VVTLi system (similar in fuction to Honda's iVTEC), was co-developed with Yamaha. Ford also worked with Yamaha on both the first and second generation SHO V6 and the third generation SHO V8.


Great point about Yamaha!

And great point about Nissan as well. BMW's VANOS system was based on the mechanical (as you've indicated) system by Alfa Romeo. I'm not sure on the actual date as to when the system became electronically actuated and hydraulic.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR

When did BMW have Vanos ? Before Honda VTEC ? Or is it the response to VTEC to improve engine performance ?


VANOS came about in the early 1980's. And BMW didn't come out with it, Alfa Romeo did. BMW didn't start using the system until 1992.

Quote:

Then why didn't BMW applied motorcycles experience to car engines ? Why they waited for Honda introduced VTEC then came up to Vanos ?


Maybe because BMW didn't feel they needed to? Not every manufacturer uses the same approach. Honda loves to use 4-cylinder engines of very small displacement and rev them to the moon. BMW chooses to use a naturally balanced I-6 engine of larger displacement and not rev them as high.

Quote:

Is it wrong to state that Honda F1 engines produced more power than any other F1 team in the '80's ? If I remember correctly, Honda 1.5L turbo charged engine produced more than 1100-1200 HP, too much more than anyone else at that time, there wasn't fair for other teams so that they dropped the turbo charged engines after few years.


I don't think it is wrong, I'm just not sure what it proves or doesn't? I didn't say Honda wasn't a very capable manufacturer, simply used some 60's examples to show that they aren't the only one. Do you disagree with that?

Quote:

More power than anyone else while comply the EPA regulations in a pedestrian engines.


You mean more HP/L. Which again, I'm not sure should be given the weight you are giving it. 240HP is still 240HP, regardless of whether it comes from an 88HP/L engine or a 120HP/L engine and when your competition is using larger, less power-dense engines, if they are making 400HP, they are still making more power than you.

Quote:

Are they available in most, if not all, cars in showroom ? As far as I remember, most BMW, MB and Audi had 2 valve engines in 1989-1990, only specialty cars had 4 valves. It took them more than 4-5 years to have 4 valves engines in most cars. It seems European companies rested on their laurel for some time in late 70's to mid-late 80's, until LS400 and Q45 and NSX wake them up in early 90's


Honda made plenty of SOHC less than impressive power-wise engines as well. BMW decided to only put the 4-valve-per-cylinder engines in their higher-content models. So be it, that was their choice and doesn't make them technologically inferior, which is what I thought your point was?

Quote:

Comparing a 4-cylinder engine in a mid $30k car with a V8 engine in a $80+ car is a fair play ? Even the 6-cylinder BMW Z4 could not beat the lowly 4-cylinder S2000.


Yes, because that was Honda's top offering. Whether it was 30K or 80K is irrelevant. BMW decided to put a 5L, 400HP/390lb-ft V8 in their top model and charged more money for it.


Quote:
Do BMW has any 4-cylinder engine with displacement of around 2 liter produces more than 240 HP currently ? It had been 12 years since Honda had S2000 in 2000 and nobody can duplicate similar performance without resorting to turbo changed or super charged.


No, because that's not their approach. But they do have TEN cylinder engines around the 5L range making 550HP. So, 110HP/L, but in a much larger engine and subsequently, it makes a LOT more power.

Quote:
Do not look down to your competitors, be it Japanese or South Korean or Chinese, they may not be as innovative in some area but they try to learn from everybody and they may come up with new idea. The Japanese showed it in late 70's and early 80's.

I do have Honda S2000 also have LS400 and E430, so that I'm not a Honda fanboy. I only give credits where credit is due.


Honda has a different approach, and it isn't a bad one. But you need to consider the other angles. BMW choosing larger displacement engines to put their higher technology stuff on doesn't make their results any less relevant.

 

[hattaresguy]

No no, by bleeding edge I mean way more advanced.

Direct fuel injection in the 1950's anymore? I mean I know in 2012 its supposedly new, but its not.

I'm talking about cars made before there was a Japanese auto industry. What about a dual overhead cam magnesium V8? I don't think the cutting edge brandy new last word in Lexus car technology LFA or whatever they call that $400k car uses an all magnesium V8.

Their is nothing new or cutting edge about the NSX that's what makes them as reliable as an Accord. Spin a little motor up high as [censored] and go like [censored], that concept has been around since the 1920's. Its right out of Ettore Bugatti's playbook.

 

[HTSS_TR]

Is there any other normal aspirated reciprocating 4-cylinder engine generate more than 110 HP per liter since 2000 in a car that cost less than $40k and comply with EPA emission ?

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Is there any other normal aspirated reciprocating 4-cylinder engine generate more than 110 HP per liter since 2000 in a car that cost less than $40k and comply with EPA emission ?


Nope. That's Honda's price point. BMW charges more. A LOT more. And they can get away with doing so.

The guy that bought my M5 originally could have bought TWO S2000's + a Civic with what he spent. But he bought the M5.

People will pay more for a German marque. It's just the way it is.

 

[Shannow]

Originally Posted By: HTSS_TR
Is it wrong to state that Honda F1 engines produced more power than any other F1 team in the '80's ? If I remember correctly, Honda 1.5L turbo charged engine produced more than 1100-1200 HP, too much more than anyone else at that time, there wasn't fair for other teams so that they dropped the turbo charged engines after few years.


Yes it's wrong to say.

 

[HTSS_TR]

I think it is apple-orange in comparing performance of M5 with S2000. M5 has twice the number of cylinders, has more than twice the displacement (150%).

Comparing Z4 3.0L V6 with S2000 is not really fair either, because Z4 has 50% more cylinders and displacement. Even with those advantages Z4 could not match S2000 performance. To beat S2000 performance BMW have to go up to V8 engine and more than twice the displacement in the Z8.

I said it before and I'm repeating here: Don't look down to Asian auto industry, dismissing them as copy cat only will bite you in the behind later.