• Protip: Profile posts are public! Use Conversations to message other members privately. Everyone can see the content of a profile post.

New NSX Engine Revealed

Well I was wrong. It's turbo. My dreams and hopes of high rev are probably dashed as well. Have to wait for further specs but it's like Honda is just saying "me too". How weak is the engine that it needs hybrid and turbo to compete.

I'm happy for the FI guys but this comes out as a fail to me. Old Honda is gone as there really isn't anything unique anymore and no engineering breakthrough just "Me too". Ok rant over

I too was disappointed because I love NA and its pure feel and sound. And I have come to believe that NA was Honda's thing and nobody did it better - at least for production cars. So I really get the point that WingZ was making. But in retrospect, I think something had to give with the parameters they were trying to achieve: Compete with or surpass the 458 in feel and performance at GTR prices, Achieve new levels of fuel efficiency for a performance car, Introduce a new technology that improves traction, improves handling, improves low-end response and reduces emissions like the Porsche 918 but at 1/10th the price. Turbo-charging was a way to accomplish all of this.

And if they are successful and the new NSX develops a significant number of devoted followers like the 911, then in a couple of years they can justify producing a special high performance NA version of the car with a 10,000 rpm for an additional $50K like Porsche just did with their GT3 (while still offering a 911 Turbo). They can always come back to their roots for us NA purists. But right now they have to build a market for their supercar by hitting the numbers at a reasonable price ala GTR. Because like it or not, people spending this kind of cash on a supercar don't like getting blown away by Mustangs and Camaros at stop lights. And I can't say I blame them.
 
Last edited:
And if they are successful and the new NSX develops a significant number of devoted followers like the 911, then in a couple of years they can justify producing a special high performance NA version of the car with a 10,000 rpm like Porsche just did with their GT3 (while still offering a 911 Turbo).

I too was hoping for a screamer of an NA engine in the new car.
But for reasons you mentioned, with the weight of the new car and the competitor's numbers, Honda needed more power than a 3.5L NA could muster hence the turbos.

However putting out an NA version later on would face the same obstacles wouldn't it?
With even, say, 135 hp/liter from a 3.5 at best you'd have the same power as the Porsche GT3 and consequently lower performance than the NSX turbo.
To do better wouldn't they have to increase the displacement of their V6 to, say, 3.8L like the GT3?
In either case a 3.5 L or 3.8 L NA would require a new engine and intake/fueling system at likely high cost to Honda so they wouldn't offer an NA at a discount.
Do you think the market would pay a premium for a lower performance NA NSX?
BTW the GT3 engine has a 9000 not 10000 red line.
 
...What is it exactly about a small displacement/high-rev engine that is not emissions-compliant...


For all you Turbo fans and Naturally Aspirated Fans,

Problem:

One of the main reason high revving engines has a little more challenge meeting tighter emission requirement is that a higher range of operating RPM requires more precise control for clean combustion and this is limited by valve timing and lift.

The key variable is that fuel largely burns at the same rate regardless of rpm. During a combustion cycle, you have intake, compression, expansion, and exhaust stroke going on for each cycle. The ignition timing, valve timing and valve lift needs to be optimized for each specific rpm so that during the expansion stroke, the fuel is burned as much as possible before the exhaust valves open. As the rpm is increased, the pistons are moving faster but the burn rate of the fuel is fixed. Therefore, fuel may not be entirely burned at the end of the expansion stroke prior to exhaust valve opening. As a result, unburned fuel goes out the exhaust. Also at high rpm and high load, the risk of detonation can blow engines so engines are setup to run rich at WOT (Wide open Throttle).

The good news is that Ignition timing is varied and adjusts to RPM and load. This has been the case on moden engines for a long time, so ignition timing is already been optimized for each RPM. However, valve timing and lift is not infinitely adjustable and has limititations. The variable lift in VTEC does give you adjustment for lift and timing but it is a stepped ladder increase. For the current VTEC system in S2000 and NSX, there are only 2 modes. Therefore only 2 sets of cam calibrations. In a perfect sense, the 2 cam calibration are optimized for only 2 rpms but is not optimized across all rpms. On the other hand, the VTC system on iVTEC goes a longer way because it can vary timing over a larger range. But I'm not sure it can respond fast enough with quick changes to RPM. The VTC in ivtec only varies timing but not lift and is currently only employed on the intake cams.

Solution

One approach to running cleaner is to optimize the valve timing and lift system for every rpm and engine load condition. I believe AVTEC was a step in the right direction in achieving infinitely variable lift and cam timing. But it is currently scrapped due to concerns with excessive lash and potentially too much wear. With the current iVTEC system, an improvement can be obtained by adding VTC on both the intake and exhaust cams.

BMW’s valvetronis achieves variable timing and lift but it has excessive weight and inertia issues to prevent it from high RPM applications. Hence most past M series model do not employ this technology.

In addition, laser ignition system would also help with cleaner combustion by having a stronger flame initiation. Ignition timing could also be improved because laser igniters can pulse within nanoseconds instead of milliseconds with spark plugs. Laser can also burn lean mixtures so there would be no need to run rich and pollute during WOT conditions. Lasers could focus their beams into the middle of the column, from which point the explosion would expand more symmetrically. Refererence to this link. http://www.gizmag.com/laser-ignition-spark-plug-alternative/18469/

Why Turbos?

More power per unit of displacement. Engines can be smaller with less cylinders. Less cylinders = less frictional loss with less cylinders and valve train to move. More power is relatively easy, just crank up the boost. Why use crazy rpms to chase horsepower when OEMs can just dial up the boost to meet power goals. With high rpms, you are back to emission issues and more mechanical friction. Turbo is a more efficient solution, no doubt. The power is not totally free because using exhaust gas to spin turbines creates back pressure on the exhaust stroke so it does choke the engine a bit. In addition, engine components will need to be reinforced for the higher output, which you already know that.

Innovation?

The question is, is Turbo innovative? Turbo has been around a very long time. It is a proven solution to meet current/future green mandates. Because the technology has been around, it is easy for OEMs to quickly adopt it without an excessive amount of R&D to invent new solutions. For this reason, many companies have jumped on this bandwagon. It is a cost effective solution to simultaneously meet green mandates and satisfy power hungry drivers.

Will Turbo be the way of the future? Let’s use history as a guide. In the 70 and 80s we saw turbos come into play. The OEMs needed to compensate for smaller engines and lower compression so they added Turbo to give us the best of both worlds. In theory is was the ideal solution but in practice, not much so because of problems with heat and lag. However, in the 90s turbos phased out as innoviation phased in with electronics controlling emissions for precise fuel metering. Big engines came roaring back. Innovation drove out turbos. MPGs didn’t improve much in the 90s – 2000s but they cranked out big power while keeping clean emissions.

Currently, heat issues has been addressed and lag continues to diminish. Turbo is the immediate future. It is a perhaps a stop gap to achieve conflicting goals of power and efficiency but I don’t feel it is innovative.

Laser ignition and infinitely variable timing and valve lift systems, which can operate reliably at high rpms, will be warmly welcomed when they arrive. Six plus years ago, I spoke with a research scientist at the DOE who was working on laser igniters for automotive applications. It is slow coming but I believe it will happen. This industry is researching new innovative concepts we haven’t imagined. Will turbo be prevalent 20 years from now? Maybe, or maybe not.
 
JD - Check my edit above. I would guess that they would have to offer such a high performance model at a premium price. I think the GT3 is $40K more than a 911 Carrera but its hard to tell with the options variations. I see this NA version costing more with more technology in the engine to hit those high hp/l numbers and in the body to save even more weight. So it would perform comparably but with a more visceral experience. Again looking at Porsche, I don't think the GT3 is faster in a straight line than the Turbo S but its still the "Ringer".

I realize the currrent GT3 redlines at 9K but I was talking about the NSX more than the actual stats of the GT3. Keep in mind, this would be the year 2016 and plus they aren't Honda.
 
For all you Turbo fans and Naturally Aspirated Fans..........Laser ignition and infinitely variable timing and valve lift systems, which can operate reliably at high rpms, will be warmly welcomed when they arrive. Six plus years ago, I spoke with a research scientist at the DOE who was working on laser igniters for automotive applications. It is slow coming but I believe it will happen. This industry is researching new innovative concepts we haven’t imagined. Will turbo be prevalent 20 years from now? Maybe, or maybe not.

Thank you very much for taking the time to post this.
I had never thought about the burn rate being a fixed component of the power cycle.
It nicely explains a lot of engine changes over the years.

I can see if technological changes can address improving this component then cleaner more powerful engines can be built.
No wonder developing a new engine is such a huge cost.
It also explains one of the reasons for the need for huge capital for companies to keep up with CAFE/environmental demands etc.
 
Very informative post, Silver F16. It does give some context to the turbo debate, besides just 'I don't like it/I love it'.
 
JD - Check my edit above. I would guess that they would have to offer such a high performance model at a premium price. I think the GT3 is $40K more than a 911 Carrera but its hard to tell with the options variations. I see this NA version costing more with more technology in the engine to hit those high hp/l numbers and in the body to save even more weight. So it would perform comparably but with a more visceral experience. Again looking at Porsche, I don't think the GT3 is faster in a straight line than the Turbo S but its still the "Ringer".

I realize the currrent GT3 redlines at 9K but I was talking about the NSX more than the actual stats of the GT3. Keep in mind, this would be the year 2016 and plus they aren't Honda.

Sorry, when you said .....10,000 rpm like Porsche....., I thought you meant the GT3 engine redlined at 10K.

I'm sure Honda would have much preferred an NA NSX.
But to get the power they'd need bigger displacement, like 4-4.5 L which is V8 territory and they are committed to a V6 (according to Ted Klaus)

I think another dilemma for an NA version NSX might be that for a car that may sell 2500-3000 units per year the cost of any all new versions (like NA) would have to be spread over a pretty small volume.
Plus unless the NA version increased total NSX sales enough to cover the NA development costs, Honda would run the risk of the NA version cannibalizing sales of the turbo version resulting in a marketing disaster.

I'm pretty sure Honda executives would have had the NA/Turbo debate internally some time ago, and reached a consensus that confirmed the V6 configuration and confirmed turbo power as necessary to be competitive.
If that's correct I just can't see any scenario now where they'd reverse this corporate decision and spend a bundle on a niche of a niche NA market.
I'd expect their commitment to NSX V6 turbo plus re-entry in F1 V6 turbo is showing the future direction of Honda powertrain investment dollars.

Perhaps another aspect of this which we don't see is the effect of the recent car industry recession and the development of the HondaJet.
At NSXPO we had a presentation on the HondaJet, and it dawned on me then how much of Honda's capital and credit must have been used for that corporate expansion.

Perhaps Honda had enough wealth to do anything they wanted but not enough to do everything they wanted.

We had the HSV V10 concept, and they had a 4.4 L V8 for the ALMS series, so many engine options were open to them for a new NSX.
Perhaps the corporate reality they faced was not enough capital to do, say, a V8 NSX, and given their corporate environmental policy they decided to go with a V6 because they know V6 well, it's cheaper, and it fits the company policy.

In any event they've made their choices and I'd expect we'll see lots of V6 turbo innovation and technology coming our way.
 
Last edited:
For all you Turbo fans and Naturally Aspirated Fans,

Problem:

One of the main reason high revving engines has a little more challenge meeting tighter emission requirement is that a higher range of operating RPM requires more precise control for clean combustion and this is limited by valve timing and lift.

The key variable is that fuel largely burns at the same rate regardless of rpm. During a combustion cycle, you have intake, compression, expansion, and exhaust stroke going on for each cycle. The ignition timing, valve timing and valve lift needs to be optimized for each specific rpm so that during the expansion stroke, the fuel is burned as much as possible before the exhaust valves open. As the rpm is increased, the pistons are moving faster but the burn rate of the fuel is fixed. Therefore, fuel may not be entirely burned at the end of the expansion stroke prior to exhaust valve opening. As a result, unburned fuel goes out the exhaust. Also at high rpm and high load, the risk of detonation can blow engines so engines are setup to run rich at WOT (Wide open Throttle).

The good news is that Ignition timing is varied and adjusts to RPM and load. This has been the case on moden engines for a long time, so ignition timing is already been optimized for each RPM. However, valve timing and lift is not infinitely adjustable and has limititations. The variable lift in VTEC does give you adjustment for lift and timing but it is a stepped ladder increase. For the current VTEC system in S2000 and NSX, there are only 2 modes. Therefore only 2 sets of cam calibrations. In a perfect sense, the 2 cam calibration are optimized for only 2 rpms but is not optimized across all rpms. On the other hand, the VTC system on iVTEC goes a longer way because it can vary timing over a larger range. But I'm not sure it can respond fast enough with quick changes to RPM. The VTC in ivtec only varies timing but not lift and is currently only employed on the intake cams.

Solution

One approach to running cleaner is to optimize the valve timing and lift system for every rpm and engine load condition. I believe AVTEC was a step in the right direction in achieving infinitely variable lift and cam timing. But it is currently scrapped due to concerns with excessive lash and potentially too much wear. With the current iVTEC system, an improvement can be obtained by adding VTC on both the intake and exhaust cams.

BMW’s valvetronis achieves variable timing and lift but it has excessive weight and inertia issues to prevent it from high RPM applications. Hence most past M series model do not employ this technology.

In addition, laser ignition system would also help with cleaner combustion by having a stronger flame initiation. Ignition timing could also be improved because laser igniters can pulse within nanoseconds instead of milliseconds with spark plugs. Laser can also burn lean mixtures so there would be no need to run rich and pollute during WOT conditions. Lasers could focus their beams into the middle of the column, from which point the explosion would expand more symmetrically. Refererence to this link. http://www.gizmag.com/laser-ignition-spark-plug-alternative/18469/

Why Turbos?

More power per unit of displacement. Engines can be smaller with less cylinders. Less cylinders = less frictional loss with less cylinders and valve train to move. More power is relatively easy, just crank up the boost. Why use crazy rpms to chase horsepower when OEMs can just dial up the boost to meet power goals. With high rpms, you are back to emission issues and more mechanical friction. Turbo is a more efficient solution, no doubt. The power is not totally free because using exhaust gas to spin turbines creates back pressure on the exhaust stroke so it does choke the engine a bit. In addition, engine components will need to be reinforced for the higher output, which you already know that.

Innovation?

The question is, is Turbo innovative? Turbo has been around a very long time. It is a proven solution to meet current/future green mandates. Because the technology has been around, it is easy for OEMs to quickly adopt it without an excessive amount of R&D to invent new solutions. For this reason, many companies have jumped on this bandwagon. It is a cost effective solution to simultaneously meet green mandates and satisfy power hungry drivers.

Will Turbo be the way of the future? Let’s use history as a guide. In the 70 and 80s we saw turbos come into play. The OEMs needed to compensate for smaller engines and lower compression so they added Turbo to give us the best of both worlds. In theory is was the ideal solution but in practice, not much so because of problems with heat and lag. However, in the 90s turbos phased out as innoviation phased in with electronics controlling emissions for precise fuel metering. Big engines came roaring back. Innovation drove out turbos. MPGs didn’t improve much in the 90s – 2000s but they cranked out big power while keeping clean emissions.

Currently, heat issues has been addressed and lag continues to diminish. Turbo is the immediate future. It is a perhaps a stop gap to achieve conflicting goals of power and efficiency but I don’t feel it is innovative.

Laser ignition and infinitely variable timing and valve lift systems, which can operate reliably at high rpms, will be warmly welcomed when they arrive. Six plus years ago, I spoke with a research scientist at the DOE who was working on laser igniters for automotive applications. It is slow coming but I believe it will happen. This industry is researching new innovative concepts we haven’t imagined. Will turbo be prevalent 20 years from now? Maybe, or maybe not.

Yes, very cool post. If Honda can break new ground with the turbo tech, then it will still be relevant and revolutionary.

I personally still want a 8K+ rev from the twin turbos and I think Honda will deliver. I was slightly disappointed to see the tach on the new Civc Type R reds at 7K, but that is a completely different animal... I don't think I would ever be in the market for a Civic Type R based on it's looks, let alone would it be sold over here anyways.
 
Here's a link to a Canadian auto writer who does a road test segment on a weekly show up here. He was at the recent Honda Technology Days and tested the hybrid SH-AWD RLX (glowing reviews) .. also gives his perspectives on what the engineers told him about the NSX drivetrain and development. Not too much news here but he did mention the use of carbon-reinforced plastic which I think is the first time I've heard it specifically mentioned for the NSX.
http://driving.ca/honda/auto-news/n...pe-r-steals-the-show-at-honda-technology-day/
 
And if they are successful and the new NSX develops a significant number of devoted followers like the 911, then in a couple of years they can justify producing a special high performance NA version of the car with a 10,000 rpm for an additional $50K like Porsche just did with their GT3 (while still offering a 911 Turbo). They can always come back to their roots for us NA purists.
It just hit me. IF Honda rips out the hybrid system the absence of the batteries and the third electric motor, which is mounted behind the driver, might actually provide enough space to put a V8 in there!
 
Some great posts on the technicals. How do motorcycles achieve such high rpms (noting less mass etc etc)? I think my old Yamaha R1 had a 17k redline (though I am not sure anymore). Maybe they are not very efficient engines and no one pushes them because of the small market.
 
I found this from Yahoo Answers:

Because the displacement of the engines are relatively small. To make the desired amount of power they must operate at a higher RPM to get the desired responsiveness.

You also see this in automotive engines. For example. A 2.0L overhead cam inline 4 cylinder engine will typically run at about 2500 to 3000 RPM at 60 MPH. But a larger V8 engine may only run at 1500 to 1800 RPM at 60 MPH. This is because in general a larger displacement motor will make the same amount of power at a lower RPM than the smaller engine will make at a higher RPM.

It can also depend on other items related to the actual design and intended use of the engine. For example.

For a V-Twin cruiser or touring bike you may not want the engine to make it's power at a high RPM. On this type bike the rider generally wants low end torque more than high end power. The trade off is the engine does not make as much maximum power. But these riders don't care because that's not the way they ride. Many times a V-Twin cruiser will not even have a tachometer because in general the riders will never push their engine to the limit. They don't need a tach to tell them when to shift, they listen to the engine instead.

A Sport Bike is essentially a street legal racing bike. These bikes have street legal versions of a racing engine. These engines are designed to make their power in a higher RPM range. The trade off is less low end torque. This means that you must keep the engine RPM higher to keep the engine responsive. But if these bikes are ridden as intended this is not a problem. You will be happy letting the engine sing to you.

If you are annoyed by the high engine RPM, maybe you are riding the wrong bike. If you are a person who just likes to ride and does not like to go fast maybe you should switch to a V-Twin cruiser. Or if you like riding fast, stay with the sport bike. There are lots of choices in styles, sizes, and prices of bike. It's up to you to decide what you like.
 
Normally, I wouldn't be "that guy" on the internet, this forum in particular........but I called this a mile away: Formula 1 announces V6TT engine formula --> Honda announces partnership with McLaren to return to F1 --> Honda/Acura non-committal with drivetrain details of new super sportscar --> Ted says new NSX will compete with 458 on the top end without adding any details. You really only have two options: A ridiculously high-strung/high rpm V6....(good luck engineering that to last like a Honda and do it on a budget that will allow you to price with Audi/Porsche)....or boost.

:) [/thatguy][/rightontheinternet]





Take the Gallardo as a case-study: 57% rear 43% front. That's 1% more towards the front than the "old" NSX and it has the a good section of transmission/diff behind the rear axle (handling hasn't suffered there either).

Also, I'm with most folks who are considering the 2200lbs a typo until proven otherwise. 3200 would still be an impressive feat with all the safety gear and motors and such.

That said, Recall the Sesto Elemento and all of it's forged carbon shenanigans.....(once again probably out due to budget though).

Top Gear article says they are targeting a weight of 1400 kg (or just over 3000 lbs.):

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/honda-nsx-a-458-at-half-the-price-2013-11-20

Not that I know much about building one of these but that does seem ambitious. I am just happy they are talking about this weight target.

Also I was surprised that they would mount the battery between the seats and the engine. Isn't that where the original car has its gas tank? Will they have room for both or does the gas tank get moved to the front of the car? If so, does that more significantly affect the weight distribution as the car depletes the tank?

I know I am armchair Quarterbacking but what else am I supposed to do at this hour when I can't sleep?
 
Top Gear article says they are targeting a weight of 1400 kg (or just over 3000 lbs.):
I know I am armchair Quarterbacking but what else am I supposed to do at this hour when I can't sleep?

Writing Prime posts when sleep is elusive is one of my bad habits resulting in wordy dissertations that I cringe at the next day. :)
Meantime I too agree 1400 kg is a super target.

And thinking more about your NA version, now that its a longitudinal layout, wouldn't an NA street version of Honda's 4.4 L ALMS V8 looked good in there?
 
I have owned a mildly modded 450 HP Twin Turbo 300zx and my current NSX. My experiences are limited in terms of track and skilled driving. The discussion here mainly focuses on technology and how to achieve the most HP given all of its limitations. Someone please discuss how the NEW NSX would feel differently (driving wise), than if I was going to turbo my current NSX. If the feelings are minimal, than I will be spending over $100k on how the car looks and new technological gadgets.
 
I have owned a mildly modded 450 HP Twin Turbo 300zx and my current NSX. My experiences are limited in terms of track and skilled driving. The discussion here mainly focuses on technology and how to achieve the most HP given all of its limitations. Someone please discuss how the NEW NSX would feel differently (driving wise), than if I was going to turbo my current NSX. If the feelings are minimal, than I will be spending over $100k on how the car looks and new technological gadgets.

Tough for anyone to answer unless you've driven both cars no?
 
If twin turbos and a hybrid is good enough for the mclaren p1, it's good enough for me. ;)
+1

The MP4-12C is a 3.8L Twin Turbo V8 that revs to 8500rpm and makes 616hp/443lb-ft torque and is one amazing car.

All BMW M cars are going to be Turbocharged, with the torque that the M3's always needed, and the V10 lost compared to the 5.0L V8.

I'm glad to see that the new NSX will be turbocharged.
 
Charlee perhaps you can look at some of the Drive videos with Chris Harris. He touches on some of the technologies the NSX will have and gives thoughts on how they feel compared to previous generations of cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVdme4ISq8Y
911 GT3 - on a dual clutch transmission vs manual (among other things)

Mercedes SLS - on electric motors and torque vectoring (perhaps similar to SH-AWD)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IElqf-FCMs8

Porsche 918 - on hybrid powertrains and driving modes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mu_GezgxQ4o
 
Last edited:
I have owned a mildly modded 450 HP Twin Turbo 300zx and my current NSX. My experiences are limited in terms of track and skilled driving. The discussion here mainly focuses on technology and how to achieve the most HP given all of its limitations. Someone please discuss how the NEW NSX would feel differently (driving wise), than if I was going to turbo my current NSX. If the feelings are minimal, than I will be spending over $100k on how the car looks and new technological gadgets.

Good points,

probably not much in terms of pure propulsion.

They are trying to add a different dynamic.

If they get it right, it might be a fantastic little drag racer.

I would imagine the the front drive electric motors would jump you off the line extremely quicKly with zero lag as your competition struggles for traction.
After which , the Turbo will be fully spooled ready to finish the Job. It might work ( beat whatever competition) but they will be using 3 motors to do it. Cheating ? :biggrin:

Personally. I wish they would have kept it simple.

Although V-8 is not normally a Honda thing, it's the perfect engine. Close with a 10 in terms of power, lighter and any more pistons is pointless.

Not only would it have saved them money , it would make a huge and unexpected statement.

Solid and reliable it would be plenty fast and if you needed more maybe R.

Now, about the styling................:biggrin:

S
 
Last edited:
With a very heavy emphasis on Aero I believe some of the styling is dictated by the wind tunnel. Does anyone here think the NSX will not handle well?
 
I think the new car handling, aero and interior will be at a new level but perhaps not enough to buy the car for those reasons alone.
I think the greatest difference will be in the torque delivery and transmission of that torque.

If Honda can blend the electric low end with the turbo top end we could have a similar flat torque curve as our current NSX but at a much increased output level.
That torque multiplied by 7 or 8 gears and shifted much faster than our current cars should yield a whole new experience over the entire driving range.

Ted Klaus keeps reiterating the total driving experience rather than the numbers.
I interpret that to mean lots of torque at all rpm, and lots of quick gears to multiply the torque.

There are many turbo NSX's today with a power to weight ratio as good as or better than what's coming but I don't think today's car will be able to duplicate the torque delivery and the transmission.
 
JD - I couldn't agree more. And speaking of torque, this thing is going to be a monster. From Digital Trends posted in August (posted in another Prime thread):

The V6 displaces 3.5 liters and has 2 turbochargers. It produces 450 horsepower and 450 pound-feet of torque, but it also gets a little help from 3 electric motors. 1 motor is attached to the car’s 7-speed dual-clutch automatic transmission, helping to drive the rear wheels. The other 2 drive 1 front wheel each.

Combined, the V6 and 3 electric motors produce 560 hp and 650 lb-ft.

If this article, which predicted the twin turbos, is right about the torque numbers, then it will have almost 200 ft/lbs more than a Nissan GTR and a Mclaren 12C and just 72 ft/lbs less than the $900K Mclaren P1! That is serious company.
 
Back
Top