MB GT-S 3s 0-60 and 11.2s 1/4 Mile -- NSX v2 MUST Do Better -- MUCH Better

[fastaussie]

On the contrary, it's very easy. Look at the GT-R. 2009 car 485bhp, 2012 car 530bhp. nigh on identical engine hardware (apart from minor to change to turbo inlet pipes said to be worth 10bhp but again easily changed).

you guys really think it's that easy aye, just turn up the boost a little bit more? there's a little more to it than that. engine reliability, fuel mileage, engine mapping and programming, emissions, and so on. and it costs an obscene amount of money to develop and test a new engine, as well as a lot of time.

Set a long time ago knowing that the competition will improve their game, knowing that Ferrari will come with a 458 successor ... Honda is well aware of this ( as they were with the first generation NSX, targeting first the 328 and there after the 348 ) and they left themselves a confortable margin like going to 3.8L or using bigger turbos or revving higher ... For sure, as they did with the Ti conrods and VTEC for the original NSX, they will pull something.

With turbo setup it is easier to extract more juice IMVHO ...

So, this is why Honda did not commit themselves with power and weight numbers ... I agree with Adamantium on that matter.

every car manufacturer knows their competition will improve with each successive model, that's a given. stuntman is correct, when they finalised their engine displacement and configuration, they knew then what their goals were. it is highly possible and likely that Honda has since decided they need to raise that goal a little bit more. that would explain their secrecy about the NSX's numbers. if that's the case, exactly like their inauspicious return to F1, Honda was caught napping...

 

[Adamantium]

you guys really think it's that easy aye, just turn up the boost a little bit more? there's a little more to it than that. engine reliability, fuel mileage, engine mapping and programming, emissions, and so on. and it costs an obscene amount of money to develop and test a new engine, as well as a lot of time.

and yet that's exactly what they did with the Gtr. Boost raised from 0.9 to 1.1 bar. It amounted to a remap which did take time but emissions and consumption aren't big considerations when you are looking for peak numbers. The standard co2 hc and mpg tests don't go anywhere near wot.

btw I work directly with oem development of a major Detroit based manufacturer.

 

[stuntman]

According to the Edmund article, the boost was not raised.

 

[fastaussie]

and yet that's exactly what they did with the Gtr. Boost raised from 0.9 to 1.1 bar. It amounted to a remap which did take time but emissions and consumption aren't big considerations when you are looking for peak numbers. The standard co2 hc and mpg tests don't go anywhere near wot.

exactly, it took time. a span of 3 to 4 years, not an insignificant amount of time. which in turn equals development costs also, big ones.

btw I work directly with oem development of a major Detroit based manufacturer.

and since you've just stated you work directly with major manufacturers, you will also be able to attest, that by the time a car is released with all numbers to the press and public, that company has already been working on improving it's performance, either for that same or a subsequent model, for quite a while prior to said release. you will know, it's never as simple as bumping the boost or changing a pulley...