# So I was trying to prove a point... **URL:** \ **Category:** PittSpeed Off Topic\ **Created:** [October 18, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735 "2005-10-18T22:15:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:15pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/1 "2005-10-18T22:15:17Z")
…to a friend. He was arguing Honda/Acura does waaaaaaaaaaay more per cube than GM could EVER do. I argued sure Acura’s flag-ship motor (the NSX’s V6) is way down on cubes, and of course power, but there’s no excuse for that since it actually gets worse fuel mileage. Here’s the facts… [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20451.shtml](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20451.shtml) 2005 Acura NSX Find a Car Fuel Economy Fuel Type Premium MPG (city) 17 MPG (highway) 24 MPG (combined) 20 [http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19345.shtml](http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/19345.shtml) 2004 Chevrolet Corvette Find a Car Fuel Economy Fuel Type Premium MPG (city) 19 MPG (highway) 28 MPG (combined) 22 He argued that the HoMoCo motor is so much more high-tech and that GM is way behind the times. I replied what is behind the times about finding a more effecient and cost-effective way to make more power w/ less fuel? Sure Acura is using a smaller motor, DOHCs and 4 valves/cyl. But how is that superior tech. to a larger motor making way more HP… waaaaaaaaaay more TQ and doing it using less fuel? The C5 Z06s still get better fuel mileage than the '05 NSX (and the further back you go w/ NSXs the worse the mileage) but since I couldn’t find hard Gov. data for the mileage on Z06s I didn’t want to even include them in the argument. But you throw them in the mix and you now have a motor making over 100 more HP, 150 more TQ and producing as good if not better fuel mileage in a similar weight/aero package. Damn, it’s a shame GM is behind the times. -TJ ---
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:24pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/2 "2005-10-18T22:24:43Z")
OWNED again… 2005 Honda S2000 Find a Car Fuel Economy Fuel Type Premium MPG (city) 20 MPG (highway) 25 MPG (combined) 22 165 HP down compared to a '04 Z06 242 TQ down compared to a '04 Z06 Lighter car. No better mileage. -TJ ---
**Author:** ![SMort38](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/smort38/32/6008_2.png) [@SMort38](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SMort38)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/3 "2005-10-18T22:31:48Z")
Are you arguing HP per cube, or gas milage per cube? I thought the s2000 motor gets better HP per cube than any other production car. But your milage information seems to be accurate ---
**Author:** ![Darkstar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@Darkstar](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Darkstar)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:31pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/4 "2005-10-18T22:31:51Z")
shut the fuck up, mister Adams ---
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:36pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/5 "2005-10-18T22:36:27Z")
> [@SMort38](#): > > Are you arguing HP per cube, or gas milage per cube? > I thought the s2000 motor gets better HP per cube than any other production car. > But your milage information seems to be accurate Neither actually. For a NA motor the 2.0L S2000 motor had the best HP/Cube in any production motor. The S2000 now uses a 2.2L so that # went down some. There is no arguing it though the 2.0L S2k motor had the best HP/Cube NA. My point is who fucking cares if it doesn’t get more mileage? Why limit yourself to low cubes and no torque if their are no rewards as compared to a “ancient” pushrod V8 w/ more displacement? Mileage per cube I hadn’t even considered. I bet C5s are pretty damn high on that list though. What I was arguing was his claim that GM was far behind the technological curve. Granted the Gen III/IV motors aren’t complex in terms of valve-train and cam control. But to me a simpler technology that works better (ie provides more HP w/ equal or better mileage, disregarding cubes) is higher tech. Throw all the widgets you want at something… if there is a simpler, more elegant, and more effective solution I’ll choose it over the fancy execution. What is the point of using a small displacement motor w/ advanced valve-train tech. if it gets worse mileage anyway!?! -TJ ---
**Author:** ![grandamld9](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/48db29/32.png) [@grandamld9](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/grandamld9)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 10:57pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/6 "2005-10-18T22:57:32Z")
I think it comes down to honda knows how to squeeze hp out of small motors. I mean its roots are in small motors (from my understanding wasnt honda first just a bike builder) But GM or Chevy make there power from alot of cylinders and alot of cubic inches. I think its just the way both companies do things, not that one is better then the next. Just like if you paint a fence by hand, and your neighbor paints it with an pump sprayer. Doesnt mean your a bad fence painter or your a bad person you just picked a different way of getting to the same end result (a painted fence, or in the case of your argument HP). GM did build a powerful 4cylinder, the 2.3L quad 4 W41 made 190hp back in 1990. what honda 4 cylinder in a car was sold here in the US in 1990 that made 190hp or more, you will have a hard time finding one b/c there wasnt. ---
**Author:** ![SloWhite\_Z](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/slowhite_z/32/5969_2.png) [@SloWhite\_Z](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/SloWhite_Z)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:25am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/7 "2005-10-19T07:25:14Z")
I’m a big GM fan but the quad 4 is a peice of shit. Sure if u find one that is in good shape they run good but there known for blowing head gaskets right and left and the heads warp real easy. The whole trying to pull out as much hp you can out of a 4 cyl. is just putting more stress on the engine on 4cyl. than what it would be on a 8cyl. engine causing faster wear and tear on the engine. ---
**Author:** ![Streetnstrip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7bcc69/32.png) [@Streetnstrip](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Streetnstrip)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:34am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/8 "2005-10-19T07:34:12Z")
imports suck and domestics rule enough said ---
**Author:** ![Cheeks](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/cheeks/32/5930_2.png) [@Cheeks](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Cheeks)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:44am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/9 "2005-10-19T07:44:25Z")
so the quad four made 190 hp from 2.3 liters, later on down the road (read 1997) Honda came out with a 1.8 liter making 195 hp and if you want to go older in 1992, honda had a 1.7 making 170 hp and older than that in japan in 1988-89 they had a 1.6 liter making 160hp ---
**Author:** ![77rednecktruck](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/77rednecktruck/32/5966_2.png) [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/10 "2005-10-19T07:46:26Z")
I hate to say it, but GM really has a kick ass small block. The damn thing has been around for like 50 years, still gets good mileage using old technology, and is very powerful and reliable. All of this new vtec, 84 cams, 64 valves bullshit doesn’t mean it’s a better design. The old school pushrod motors still do just fine and they do it with years of proven technology and cheaper parts(because it’s been around for soo long). ---
**Author:** ![eurodad](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/eurodad/32/5988_2.png) [@eurodad](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/eurodad)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:46am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/11 "2005-10-19T07:46:44Z")
> [@Cheeks](#): > > so the quad four made 190 hp from 2.3 liters, later on down the road (read 1997) Honda came out with a 1.8 liter making 195 hp and if you want to go older in 1992, honda had a 1.7 making 170 hp and older than that in japan in 1988-89 they had a 1.6 liter making 160hp isn’t it time for you to find a new sig? ---
**Author:** ![77rednecktruck](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/77rednecktruck/32/5966_2.png) [@77rednecktruck](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/77rednecktruck)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 7:49am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/12 "2005-10-19T07:49:54Z")
> [@SloWhite\_Z](#): > > I’m a big GM fan but the quad 4 is a peice of shit. Sure if u find one that is in good shape they run good but there known for blowing head gaskets right and left and the heads warp real easy. The whole trying to pull out as much hp you can out of a 4 cyl. is just putting more stress on the engine on 4cyl. than what it would be on a 8cyl. engine causing faster wear and tear on the engine. x2 4cyl’s suck ass ---
**Author:** ![1320](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/1320/32/5949_2.png) [@1320](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/1320)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 8:21am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/13 "2005-10-19T08:21:48Z")
Im guessing he was trying to make the HP/cubic inch argument. To which he is right. Honda has the record for that ratio. ---
**Author:** ![Converted2LSX](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/converted2lsx/32/5962_2.png) [@Converted2LSX](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/Converted2LSX)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:08am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/14 "2005-10-19T10:08:50Z")
> [@unicorn](#): > > Im guessing he was trying to make the HP/cubic inch argument. To which he is right. Honda has the record for that ratio. yeah they just need to work on that whole TQ thing. ---
**Author:** ![BlkP42E](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/blkp42e/32/5938_2.png) [@BlkP42E](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/BlkP42E)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:11am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/15 "2005-10-19T10:11:03Z")
I want an NSX ---
**Author:** ![OLDS\_ROCKETMAN](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/olds_rocketman/32/5942_2.png) [@OLDS\_ROCKETMAN](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/OLDS_ROCKETMAN)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:35am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/16 "2005-10-19T10:35:38Z")
HoMoCo. :kekegay: ---
**Author:** ![ShalerPunk](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/shalerpunk/32/5976_2.png) [@ShalerPunk](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/ShalerPunk)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 10:45am UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/17 "2005-10-19T10:45:32Z")
> [@RedLineGSR94](#): > > yeah they just need to work on that whole TQ thing. got that right… i never had a Honda with more than six or seven ft-lbs… when I got my Prizm, it felt like a torque-monster by comparison… i wanted to go tow boats or something. ---
**Author:** ![tjZ28](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9de0a6/32.png) [@tjZ28](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/tjZ28)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 12:12pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/18 "2005-10-19T12:12:41Z")
> [@tjZ28](#): > > There is no arguing it though the 2.0L S2k motor had the best HP/Cube NA. -TJ > [@unicorn](#): > > Im guessing he was trying to make the HP/cubic inch argument. To which he is right. Honda has the record for that ratio. I beat ya to that man, I was not denying that at all. The arguement was simply that “GM is behind the times.” Not any particular arguement about hp/cube or mileage in particular. My point in bring all that up is that sure; GM uses “old tech” as far as cam-in-block for the Gen III/IV but it flat out works. There is nothing “behing the times” about using the solution that provides both BETTER FUEL MILEAGE and WAAAAAAY MORE HP/TQ. GM does have a successfull DOHC motor w/ variable valve timing in the I6 they put in the mid-sized SUVs. There was many reasons they chose not to use that sort of tech. on the Gen III (the C5 'vette’s hood-line was a big reason). But again the bottom line is the old-as-dirt cam-in-block tech. flat works. -TJ ---
**Author:** ![1320](https://yyz2.discourse-cdn.com/flex034/user_avatar/forums.speedlife.net/1320/32/5949_2.png) [@1320](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/1320)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 2:35pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/19 "2005-10-19T14:35:15Z")
> [@tjZ28](#): > > I beat ya to that man, I was not denying that at all. > > The arguement was simply that “GM is behind the times.” Well when you think about it, VTEC isnt really new technology. Its been around since 91-92ish? Thus making it something like 13 years old. GM could have copied it if they really wanted to, but decided it wasnt nessesary. ---
**Author:** ![neonmike22](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ba8739/32.png) [@neonmike22](https://forums.speedlife.net/u/neonmike22)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 4:24pm UTC](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735/20 "2005-10-19T16:24:21Z")
Now, before you read the rest of my post, keep in mind that I have a tremendous amount of respect for the V8s. GM manages to get a lot of output out of a very compact engine that is often smaller and lighter than complicated twin turbo wonder engines. > [@tjZ28](#): > > My point in bring all that up is that sure; GM uses “old tech” as far as cam-in-block for the Gen III/IV but it flat out works. There is nothing “behing the times” about using the solution that provides both BETTER FUEL MILEAGE and WAAAAAAY MORE HP/TQ. Honda IMO wins if you’re building I4s or V6s. We know about the S2000, so let’s compare GM’s latest V6 to honda’s latest V6: GM: 2006 Malibu SS 3.9L V6 240 hp @ 5800 rpm 241 ft-lbs @ 2800 rpm 25 mpg hwy 18 mpg city Honda 2006 Accord Sedan 3.0L V6 244 hp @ 6244 rpm 211 ft-lbs @ 5000 rpm 30 mpg hwy 21 mpg city The 3.9 has more low end because it’s a whole liter bigger. There’s only so much you can do to get torque out of a given displacement, aside from shorter gearing and higher revs. Honda’s biggest (?) engine, the 3.5 gets this out of the bigger (like 600lbs bigger), more expensive RL: 3.5L V6 300 hp @ 6200 rpm 260 ft-lbs @ 5000 rpm 26mpg hwy 18mpg city In my casual research GM doesn’t really seem have anything that compares to those, they generally use a lot more displacement to get that sort of output. [Next page](https://forums.speedlife.net/t/so-i-was-trying-to-prove-a-point/177735.md?page=2)