What is so special about a Honda Integra Type R - DC5?

NathWraith said:
True but at the same time squeezing as much power out of a small engine can be counter productive.

1.4TSI engine for example. 180BHP, 128BHP per litre. Not a reliable engine.
Click to expand...

128hp/litres is hardly impressive from a turbo engine anyway, just ram more air in under pressure. 200hp/litre is more normal but they need over 1 bar of boost

The real beauty of NA hp/litre is all about volumetric efficiency at getting 1 atmosphere in to an engine as well as possible (of course high revs also helps - but thats part of the VTEC appeal) no need for complex turbos or direct injection. Just design the engine properly in the first place
 
Simon said:
128hp/litres is hardly impressive from a turbo engine anyway, just ram more air in under pressure. 200hp/litre is more normal but they need over 1 bar of boost

The real beauty of NA hp/litre is all about volumetric efficiency at getting 1 atmosphere in to an engine as well as possible (of course high revs also helps - but thats part of the VTEC appeal) no need for complex turbos or direct injection. Just design the engine properly in the first place
Click to expand...

Suggesting that all turbo engines are all designed incorrectly?

The example of the 1.4TSI isn't so much the BHP/L but the effect of trying to get so much power out osuch a small engine, probably not the best example being turbo?SC aswell but it was the first thing that came to my head.
 
I mean if you don't get why bhp/litre is interesting then you aren't interested in engine engineering/design. I can understand why it doesnt sound very impressive compared to engines now.

However in this case it' about pushing something to its limit, over 10 years since no one has beat it for a normally aspirated prodcution engine, that is also massively reliable.

Its not about the number itself but what it represent - the pinacle of engine engineering. Sure you can just bolt a turbo on if you want more hp/litre but thats no longer a fair comparison, eg why is usain bolt so impressive at running the 100m when you can do it faster on a horse?
 
Simon said:
Sure you can just bolt a turbo on if you want more hp/litre but thats no longer a fair comparison
Click to expand...

Exactly, and that's why in lots of Motorsport competitions they use the FI capacity multipliers of 1.7 for Turbo/Supercharger engines, 1.5 for Rotary engines, and 1.5 then 1.7 for Forced Induction Rotary, to make it a fair comparison when dividing cars into classes.

A 300BHP Focus RS with a 2.5L engine is kinda impressive... until you do 300/(2.5*1.7)=70BHP/Litre... when it's not so impressive!
 
Simon said:
I mean if you don't get why bhp/litre is interesting then you aren't interested in engine engineering/design. I can understand why it doesnt sound very impressive compared to engines now.
Click to expand...

My point was why is it relevant on the road? I am interested in engine design and I do understand why it does break technical barriers in regards to getting as much power as possible.

What I don't understand is why people quote it as a bragging figure when they drive on the road where in reality it bears no relevance.

Not too dissimilar to quoting 0-60 times really.
 
NathWraith said:
My point was why is it relevant on the road? I am interested in engine design and I do understand why it does break technical barriers in regards to getting as much power as possible.

What I don't understand is why people quote it as a bragging figure when they drive on the road where in reality it bears no relevance.

Not too dissimilar to quoting 0-60 times really.
Click to expand...

Typically high specific power output is met with high power/kg of engine so it will mainly point to a driver focused car as you have less weight up front.
 
NathWraith said:
Suggesting that all turbo engines are all designed incorrectly?

The example of the 1.4TSI isn't so much the BHP/L but the effect of trying to get so much power out osuch a small engine, probably not the best example being turbo?SC aswell but it was the first thing that came to my head.
Click to expand...

Yeh its using force induction which IMO is a crude and lazy way of getting power (albeit one that works) and the TSI engines are still relatively new, they will improve with time. Will be interesting to see how the 1.6 Turbo engines Honda is developing get on. Rumored to be the engine for the next CTR, Honda have always hated force induction, but seems like that's the game now these days, which is a shame, really hope its not the end of the high revving DOHC VTEC's, they are engineering masterpieces.
 
lemonade said:
Yeh its using force induction which IMO is a crude and lazy way of getting power (albeit one that works) and the TSI engines are still relatively new, they will improve with time. Will be interesting to see how the 1.6 Turbo engines Honda is developing get on. Rumored to be the engine for the next CTR, Honda have always hated force induction, but seems like that's the game now these days, which is a shame, really hope its not the end of the high revving DOHC VTEC's, they are engineering masterpieces.
Click to expand...

Imagine if they could get a high-reving, 1.6 turbo engine, imagine Vtec in that :D
 
One of my regrets is buying my FN2 and spending a few k to make it anywhere near the FD2 power. Add in the LSD and balance shaft delete killer kit + DIC and I could have got a damn nice FD2 instead.
Not a fan of DC5 though, don't like the aesthetics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom