What's really wrong with the speed 6.
Discussion
Short answer: Marketing.
And that's about it. OK I'm being controversial but bear with me. Assuming a S6 does need a rebuild every 20,000 miles, this is actually very good for a race engine.
Yes I know BMW don't need this for their M3 but even they've had to put cold rev cielings on their cars to protect them. It's no big surprise that TVR don't have BMW development budgets at hand so the chances of TVR producing an engine like the beemer's is about as likely as Minardi winning a GP. Given the money available I maintain the S6 is an amazing achievement. I for one wouldn't choose an M3 engine over the 4.0S in my Sagaris based on power and character alone.
If the S6 had been marketed as a race spec engine from the start with an estimated rebuild mileage I think everyone would feel differently about it. OK, to really do the job properly they should also have offered a detuned, say 300bhp version, that is very reliable (lowering the rev limit will achieve both). The 350 bhp version would then be the 'red rose' race-spec engine and sold as such as an extra cost option. Owners of this spec engine are advised that a rebuild will be needed every 20,000 miles and the cost of the first one could be paid up front at a discounted rate if the owner chooses or included in the price.
Here's the perfect example of what I'm on about. Caterham offer its customers the R400. It's a rover 1.8 k series with around 190 bhp and is very reliable. I know because I bought one. You can of course also spec your Caterham up an R500 which is a highly tuned version of the same engine. These have nearly 230 bhp and you get told upfront they will need a 'refresh' every, wait for it, 3000 track miles or 9000 road miles. A refresh can be anything up to a little top end work to a full rebuild. I also know this because I had my R400 tuned to R500 spec.
Caterham owners like me are pleased to pay the extra for the 500 as it is a proper race engine. Just like the S6 it features a lighter flywheel, quicker response, fantastic top end power. The difference it has made over the previous spec car is amazing. It's a stunning engine and for me, worth the 'refresh'. And before anyone thinks anything like 'yeah but caterhams are much cheaper cars' consider a new R500 is well over 40k and a new R500 engine is 12k without VAT alone. And don't think a warranty company is going to pay for these 'refreshes'
Of course the S6 horse has well and truly bolted but hopefully this helps some of the nay sayers see the S6 in a more positive light. For the kind of person that loves Porsches and BMWs I can see the S6 could be something of a disappointment but for me I'd rather have the S6 as it is than something more like a wheezy yank V8, even if it does need a rebuild.
Bring it on flamers, I'm ready for ya!
Interesting that you use Caterham as an example: being a small volume manufacturer (like TVR), with limited budget (like TVR) they decided to source a power plant from a respected engine manufacturer (unlike TVR 
).
Result: the R400 provides a reliable & spine-tingling 200bhp.
One wonders what TVR might have achieved with the benefit of double the cubic capacity ....
). Result: the R400 provides a reliable & spine-tingling 200bhp.
One wonders what TVR might have achieved with the benefit of double the cubic capacity .... 200bhp is the claim based on using Caterham's roller barrel throttle bodies. My car started life as a 190bhp Superlight R which was otherwise the same spec as the R400. It was very reliable. The new engine is noticably more tempermental, in fact it's a pig but glorious when it's working properly. The only fault so far to report was actually caused by the faulty roller barrel throttle body.
Regardless of it's 'swept capacity' or whatnot the 4.0S engine is a race engine. It did several seasons propelling the T400R race cars which were thought to only produce another 50bhp more. And with considerable success including outright class wins. Amazing stuff and I for one am really sad it's not still racing.
Regardless of it's 'swept capacity' or whatnot the 4.0S engine is a race engine. It did several seasons propelling the T400R race cars which were thought to only produce another 50bhp more. And with considerable success including outright class wins. Amazing stuff and I for one am really sad it's not still racing.
the pits said:Don't forget it propelled Martin Short's Cerbera before that.
Regardless of it's 'swept capacity' or whatnot the 4.0S engine is a race engine. It did several seasons propelling the T400R race cars which were thought to only produce another 50bhp more. And with considerable success including outright class wins. Amazing stuff and I for one am really sad it's not still racing.
Pits: Nope, don't agree with you on this one.
Some early s6's failed well below 20,000 miles, and repeatedly.
Some would seem to indicate that changing some components will increase the engines durability without reducing it's power output.
TVR didn't know the engine would fail with less than 20k miles (in my opinion) so therefore could not market it as such.
I heard elsewhere that the expected life of a good s6 was about 30,000 miles (an early Tamora is being refreshed at Power IIRC). It could have been sold with that in mind, as long as TVR took the hit on failed engines with lower mileage.
The sad fact is that noone really knows how good the current (or early engines) are, or how long they can be expected to last - TVR included. My '04 engine has done 17k miles (ish) and has just been back to Power to be looked at and been given a clean bill of health with no signs of impending doom (and nor should it).
So, is my engine a 'good one', a revised specification engine, overperforming. underperforming? I simply don't know (or care). I'm planning on maintaining my warranty with TVR and driving the damned thing.
D
>> Edited by _DeeJay_ on Tuesday 3rd January 17:25
Some early s6's failed well below 20,000 miles, and repeatedly.
Some would seem to indicate that changing some components will increase the engines durability without reducing it's power output.
TVR didn't know the engine would fail with less than 20k miles (in my opinion) so therefore could not market it as such.
I heard elsewhere that the expected life of a good s6 was about 30,000 miles (an early Tamora is being refreshed at Power IIRC). It could have been sold with that in mind, as long as TVR took the hit on failed engines with lower mileage.
The sad fact is that noone really knows how good the current (or early engines) are, or how long they can be expected to last - TVR included. My '04 engine has done 17k miles (ish) and has just been back to Power to be looked at and been given a clean bill of health with no signs of impending doom (and nor should it).
So, is my engine a 'good one', a revised specification engine, overperforming. underperforming? I simply don't know (or care). I'm planning on maintaining my warranty with TVR and driving the damned thing.
D
>> Edited by _DeeJay_ on Tuesday 3rd January 17:25
My point is, from the point of view of a race engine 20k is amazing, from the point of view of an everyday road car engine it's not so good. It's a question of perspective and one a marketing strategy could have helped enormously with in terms of expectation management.
Regarding engines that have failed at low mileages there's just no way of knowing how they were treated. If it had happened to me I'd of course had a different view because I know exactly how my car has been treated. And even if I did drive it like a BMW owner I wouldn't admit to it because it wouldn't exactly help my warranty claims. The stories of endless low mileage rebuilds sound dreadful however and worse, make TVR look like they have no idea how to fix the cars. All I can go on is my own experience and that is entirely positive.
Regarding engines that have failed at low mileages there's just no way of knowing how they were treated. If it had happened to me I'd of course had a different view because I know exactly how my car has been treated. And even if I did drive it like a BMW owner I wouldn't admit to it because it wouldn't exactly help my warranty claims. The stories of endless low mileage rebuilds sound dreadful however and worse, make TVR look like they have no idea how to fix the cars. All I can go on is my own experience and that is entirely positive.
A nice idea and a good theory, but I think the standard hypothesis of inherent faults is closer to the truth.
It is good to have the benefit of hindsight, and of course *some* of the early Tuscan owners would have appreciated the knowledge that what they really had was a race engine, so expect it to last 20,000 miles (or a lot less in reality) until you need to fork out another £5000.
However, myself and I am guessing a lot of others simply wouldnt buy a car which the manufacturers admit will only last 20,000 miles (or in reality less) before I need to fork out another £5000.
Lets not forget, the Tuscan got a lot of its orders on the basis that it was promoted as an 'everyday car'. With an everyday car that you may do 8000-12000 miles a year in it, there are a limited amount of people who could afford (or want) to spend £5000 on major engine work on top of the £1500 of servcing costs. If it were touted as a track car only, so customers would quite expect routine stripping down of the engine, I for one wouldnt have bought one.
The Speed 6 should work in a reliable way. The fact is that at least the early ones were built with design flaws and/or defective parts. I see no reason why an engine which is properly designed and built should last a lot longer than 20,000 miles. The SP6 pumps out about 90hp/litre capacity. My old E36 M3 pumped out 100hp/litre. The difference was it was still pulling like a train at 130,000 miles.
I know and realise that although both are similar straight sixes of a similar capicity, they have a different character etc, however I must say that if somehow by magic I could have had the reliability of the M3 engine I would accept the loss of a slight amount of 'character' and get the sound back by fitting better cans. I would also have not have sold my Tuscan and would be driving it now.
It is good to have the benefit of hindsight, and of course *some* of the early Tuscan owners would have appreciated the knowledge that what they really had was a race engine, so expect it to last 20,000 miles (or a lot less in reality) until you need to fork out another £5000.
However, myself and I am guessing a lot of others simply wouldnt buy a car which the manufacturers admit will only last 20,000 miles (or in reality less) before I need to fork out another £5000.
Lets not forget, the Tuscan got a lot of its orders on the basis that it was promoted as an 'everyday car'. With an everyday car that you may do 8000-12000 miles a year in it, there are a limited amount of people who could afford (or want) to spend £5000 on major engine work on top of the £1500 of servcing costs. If it were touted as a track car only, so customers would quite expect routine stripping down of the engine, I for one wouldnt have bought one.
The Speed 6 should work in a reliable way. The fact is that at least the early ones were built with design flaws and/or defective parts. I see no reason why an engine which is properly designed and built should last a lot longer than 20,000 miles. The SP6 pumps out about 90hp/litre capacity. My old E36 M3 pumped out 100hp/litre. The difference was it was still pulling like a train at 130,000 miles.
I know and realise that although both are similar straight sixes of a similar capicity, they have a different character etc, however I must say that if somehow by magic I could have had the reliability of the M3 engine I would accept the loss of a slight amount of 'character' and get the sound back by fitting better cans. I would also have not have sold my Tuscan and would be driving it now.
the pits said:
...stuff
It's marketing, engineering, process and component quality control, management... Just fitting magical followers and poking the odd bit with a stick "the way Melling suggests" won't guarantee an outcome unless you can be sure every part is correct, that the engine's screwed together correctly and that the car is used/serviced correctly.
A well screwed together Speed Six is fine - they just seem to be a bit rare.
I agree marketing is shite but not representing the S6 as a race motor is not so much the issue as the management of the problems once they unfolded. Internally I can assure you TVR made efforts to respond to the problem (goodwill rebuilds, changing suppliers, changing inspection procedures - to note a few things) but externally it kept it's head firmly wedged up its fundament that allowed - and continues to allow - the rumours/guesswork/assumptions.
Current S6 engines are considerably better than they have been in the past but IMHO they still lack development and if proper development to improve the motor were happening then TVR would have something to shout about. No shouting, draw your own conclusion... "If you'd developed the answer, you wouldn't keep it a secret would you?" is a reasonable conclusion for anyone watching.
Wouldn't the launch of the delayed convertible have been a great time to introduce an 'all new' Speed Six with a publicised list of new parts/ideas/improvements ...and make such an upgrade available to current S6 owners with varying degrees of subsidy for older cars? Personally, I don't believe there is enough hard engineering development being done. And it never ceases to amaze me how many 'opportunity crossroads' TVR sails right by or takes the wrong turn at.
IMHO the S6 problems are too far gone now. It's a lovely a engine, a good example is a wonderful thing ...but Nobles and the upcoming Marcos outgun it and - so far - all we've seen is the stillborn Typhon with anything like the firepower to respond (at nigh on double the price of the Marcos). Step from the Marcos into a Sagaris and the poor old Sagaris feels positively limp-wristed.
Getting Euro IV "soon" barely scratches the surface - more proven reliability and more power are needed too.
the pits said:
Short answer: Marketing.
And that's about it. OK I'm being controversial but bear with me. Assuming a S6 does need a rebuild every 20,000 miles, this is actually very good for a race engine.
Yes I know BMW don't need this for their M3 but even they've had to put cold rev cielings on their cars to protect them. It's no big surprise that TVR don't have BMW development budgets at hand so the chances of TVR producing an engine like the beemer's is about as likely as Minardi winning a GP. Given the money available I maintain the S6 is an amazing achievement. I for one wouldn't choose an M3 engine over the 4.0S in my Sagaris based on power and character alone.
If the S6 had been marketed as a race spec engine from the start with an estimated rebuild mileage I think everyone would feel differently about it. OK, to really do the job properly they should also have offered a detuned, say 300bhp version, that is very reliable (lowering the rev limit will achieve both). The 350 bhp version would then be the 'red rose' race-spec engine and sold as such as an extra cost option. Owners of this spec engine are advised that a rebuild will be needed every 20,000 miles and the cost of the first one could be paid up front at a discounted rate if the owner chooses or included in the price.
Here's the perfect example of what I'm on about. Caterham offer its customers the R400. It's a rover 1.8 k series with around 190 bhp and is very reliable. I know because I bought one. You can of course also spec your Caterham up an R500 which is a highly tuned version of the same engine. These have nearly 230 bhp and you get told upfront they will need a 'refresh' every, wait for it, 3000 track miles or 9000 road miles. A refresh can be anything up to a little top end work to a full rebuild. I also know this because I had my R400 tuned to R500 spec.
Caterham owners like me are pleased to pay the extra for the 500 as it is a proper race engine. Just like the S6 it features a lighter flywheel, quicker response, fantastic top end power. The difference it has made over the previous spec car is amazing. It's a stunning engine and for me, worth the 'refresh'. And before anyone thinks anything like 'yeah but caterhams are much cheaper cars' consider a new R500 is well over 40k and a new R500 engine is 12k without VAT alone. And don't think a warranty company is going to pay for these 'refreshes'
Of course the S6 horse has well and truly bolted but hopefully this helps some of the nay sayers see the S6 in a more positive light. For the kind of person that loves Porsches and BMWs I can see the S6 could be something of a disappointment but for me I'd rather have the S6 as it is than something more like a wheezy yank V8, even if it does need a rebuild.
Bring it on flamers, I'm ready for ya!
Not a flame as such, but agreement,
THE TROUBLE was the marketing.
As itwas orginally marketted in all the press/promos as an EVERY day car, they wanted more people to drive them everyday and do more miles.
So very positive for turning a negative into apositive, but even race engines do not have design flawas as such (IE as melling as stated) just highly tuned...SO assuming all these fixed, a possible way to go... BUT totally the opposite direction as a 36k mile (3 year) warranty suggests. ie raise all sorts of doubts.
Also, a cap would need to be put on the rebuild costs for marketing purposes, anything from 4k - 12 k has been mentioned by some unfortunet owners.
B
Ribol said:
A well screwed together Speed Six is fine - they just seem to be a bit rare.
Are you suggesting that the S6 problem is an assembly problem then?
My personal opinion is that it is 'maybe' an assembly problem too, too many hits and misses for it to be anything else (apart from crappy spec parts, which wouldn't help a 'Friday afternoon' engine too!
The S6 is NOT a race engine. Not a hope. The following engines ALL have more chance of classifying as race-engines:-
(All N/Asp)
Honda F20 lump (S2000) - 120bhp/litre VTEC
Honda K20A (DC5 Integra) - 110bhp/litre iVTEC
Honda K20A (EP3 Civic Type R) - 99bhp/litre iVTEC
Honda B18C5/6 (DC2 Integra) - 104bhp/litre VTEC - 9 years old now, block ~13 years old.
Honda B16__ (EK9 Civic Type R) - 112bhp/litre VTEC - 9 years old also, same block.
Honda B16__ (EK-series VTi) - 100bhp/litre VTEC
Honda H22__ (Accord Type R and Prelude Type S in differing tune) - near-100bhp/litre each again, and again base engine 13+ years old.
Original NSX engine - 90+bhp/litre. Later versions 'apparently' still 276bhp but surprisingly rapid for 276! That was 15 years ago! Still a very impressive engine in it's own right.
BMW M3 E36 lump - pre-evo and evo both ~100bhp/litre, again over 10 years old.
BMW M3 E43 lump - ~100bhp/litre
BMW M5 E39 and E60 - both 100bhp/litre
ANY K-series with a VHPD head - all over 100bhp/litre
Toyota 1.8 VVTi-L engine - VTEC copy with 105bhp/litre
Porsche GT3 engines (993 and 996)...all ~100bhp/litre
Mitsi FTO MiVEC - again 90-100bhp/litre, 10-year old car.
Audi RS4 V8 - near-100bhp/litre from VAG, FFS!!!
(Notice I haven't gone near Ferrari, Lambo and the big-boys.)
Shall I continue?!? Bound to be some I've forgotten. There are 15 different families of engines above, all with better specific outputs than the Speed6 and many over 10 years old in production. Only 3 of the cars above cost more than a Tiv.
Oh...and then there's the small matter of TVR 'overestimates' of power...so the Speed6 probably wasn't a genuine 90bhp/litre!
The Speed6 is a DOG of an engine - it sounds great, produces a very impressive power curve, but simply wasn't engineered to the necessary standards, and quite possibly wasn't built to them either!
(All N/Asp)
Honda F20 lump (S2000) - 120bhp/litre VTEC
Honda K20A (DC5 Integra) - 110bhp/litre iVTEC
Honda K20A (EP3 Civic Type R) - 99bhp/litre iVTEC
Honda B18C5/6 (DC2 Integra) - 104bhp/litre VTEC - 9 years old now, block ~13 years old.
Honda B16__ (EK9 Civic Type R) - 112bhp/litre VTEC - 9 years old also, same block.
Honda B16__ (EK-series VTi) - 100bhp/litre VTEC
Honda H22__ (Accord Type R and Prelude Type S in differing tune) - near-100bhp/litre each again, and again base engine 13+ years old.
Original NSX engine - 90+bhp/litre. Later versions 'apparently' still 276bhp but surprisingly rapid for 276! That was 15 years ago! Still a very impressive engine in it's own right.
BMW M3 E36 lump - pre-evo and evo both ~100bhp/litre, again over 10 years old.
BMW M3 E43 lump - ~100bhp/litre
BMW M5 E39 and E60 - both 100bhp/litre
ANY K-series with a VHPD head - all over 100bhp/litre
Toyota 1.8 VVTi-L engine - VTEC copy with 105bhp/litre
Porsche GT3 engines (993 and 996)...all ~100bhp/litre
Mitsi FTO MiVEC - again 90-100bhp/litre, 10-year old car.
Audi RS4 V8 - near-100bhp/litre from VAG, FFS!!!
(Notice I haven't gone near Ferrari, Lambo and the big-boys.)
Shall I continue?!? Bound to be some I've forgotten. There are 15 different families of engines above, all with better specific outputs than the Speed6 and many over 10 years old in production. Only 3 of the cars above cost more than a Tiv.
Oh...and then there's the small matter of TVR 'overestimates' of power...so the Speed6 probably wasn't a genuine 90bhp/litre!
The Speed6 is a DOG of an engine - it sounds great, produces a very impressive power curve, but simply wasn't engineered to the necessary standards, and quite possibly wasn't built to them either!
Da Boss has been taking some notes I think
The problems with the S6 are in the QA and Process areas, always have been. You cant troubleshoot and perform proper systemic engineering diagnostic work effectively without proper Process Engineering. Alas that is expensive and it is why the automotive world in general prefers not to do it. With more and more complex electronic and mechanical systems however, the big boys are slowly being given no choice in the matter. IF TVR had effective QA and PCT then S6 failures could have been worked out on an individual basis and the fault everytime traced back to the exact component/sub system/system/technician. It doesnt, so it cant. In the absence of that the *only* way you can then develop your engine and diagnostic analysis is over time and examples that come in.
Unfortunately without proper and effective QA and PCT, whenever an engine fails therefore, you dont know if it was because of cr@p components, driver abuse, Billy-Bob the lousy engine technician who is a dumb arse and doesnt follow the script properly, system design problem, sub-system design problem, component design problem. Everytime an engine fails, you know none of the above.
With that in mind, the whole Melling original design thing is neither here nor there. Design is absolutely irrelevent, Ill repeat it because I know most of you just ignored those last 4 words, Design Is Absolutely Irrelevent, if you cant trust your QA and PCT. Those of us in properly resourced industries (yes I say that with tongue firmly in cheek) spend maybe 20% of our time bothering about design, the rest is on making sure it is right. The default position and attitude is that *any* of our engineers can do design, it is no big thing, peer reviewing and system test work however is only done by a few. QA and PCT work is only done by a few. Everything is audited and then audited again, reviewed and then reviewed again at every stage from unit to system level. That is the mindset a lot of you need to understand and get your head round, currently you think Design is sacrosanct, it isnt. In many ways it is the easiest part of all and any half decent and honest engineer will tell you that. British engineers have designed the world, it has never been a problem for us, in some ways we have found that aspect ridicuously easy. Making that design work to the designated standards...now that is the trick and in some ways in *that* aspect we are ridicuously rubbish. It is a fault that has afflicted a lot of British industry over the last Century, TVR are no exception.
The major issues of the production version of that engine are:
Cr@p cheap component quality.
Cr@p QA of both component quality and build quality.
Cr@p Process Control Management of the whole engine process.
Differing standards of technician competence and compliance of their instructions.
Sprinkle a decent sized helping of cost cutting on the above for garnish.
Ill let the rest of you carry on the Inherent Design Flaws argument now.
The problems with the S6 are in the QA and Process areas, always have been. You cant troubleshoot and perform proper systemic engineering diagnostic work effectively without proper Process Engineering. Alas that is expensive and it is why the automotive world in general prefers not to do it. With more and more complex electronic and mechanical systems however, the big boys are slowly being given no choice in the matter. IF TVR had effective QA and PCT then S6 failures could have been worked out on an individual basis and the fault everytime traced back to the exact component/sub system/system/technician. It doesnt, so it cant. In the absence of that the *only* way you can then develop your engine and diagnostic analysis is over time and examples that come in.
Unfortunately without proper and effective QA and PCT, whenever an engine fails therefore, you dont know if it was because of cr@p components, driver abuse, Billy-Bob the lousy engine technician who is a dumb arse and doesnt follow the script properly, system design problem, sub-system design problem, component design problem. Everytime an engine fails, you know none of the above.
With that in mind, the whole Melling original design thing is neither here nor there. Design is absolutely irrelevent, Ill repeat it because I know most of you just ignored those last 4 words, Design Is Absolutely Irrelevent, if you cant trust your QA and PCT. Those of us in properly resourced industries (yes I say that with tongue firmly in cheek) spend maybe 20% of our time bothering about design, the rest is on making sure it is right. The default position and attitude is that *any* of our engineers can do design, it is no big thing, peer reviewing and system test work however is only done by a few. QA and PCT work is only done by a few. Everything is audited and then audited again, reviewed and then reviewed again at every stage from unit to system level. That is the mindset a lot of you need to understand and get your head round, currently you think Design is sacrosanct, it isnt. In many ways it is the easiest part of all and any half decent and honest engineer will tell you that. British engineers have designed the world, it has never been a problem for us, in some ways we have found that aspect ridicuously easy. Making that design work to the designated standards...now that is the trick and in some ways in *that* aspect we are ridicuously rubbish. It is a fault that has afflicted a lot of British industry over the last Century, TVR are no exception.
The major issues of the production version of that engine are:
Cr@p cheap component quality.
Cr@p QA of both component quality and build quality.
Cr@p Process Control Management of the whole engine process.
Differing standards of technician competence and compliance of their instructions.
Sprinkle a decent sized helping of cost cutting on the above for garnish.
Ill let the rest of you carry on the Inherent Design Flaws argument now.
Hughesie II said:
Your all wrong with your long winded answers, the answer to all of your problems is Noise, give us a V8 over a straight 6 any day of the week.
A powerfull (450+ hp) V8 next to the S6 will do . . . but:
TVR website said:
"Now, the Speed Six engine, in various guises, is at the heart of every current TVR model.
And here is the point.
Every TVR car is now TVR-powered. Every TVR is a true thoroughbred sports car powered by Blackpool-built engines, all with serious motor racing provenance.
This is all the more remarkable when compared with the efforts of other Great British marques that have fallen into the hands of volume manufacturers. In the same decade that TVR declared full independence, every other Great British marque went the other way, sharing engines with sister marques.
This 'reverse trend' runs deeper than simply striking cars that look like no others, powered by special engines that provide driving and performance characteristics like no others. Climb inside a TVR . . . "
No Yank V8 then . . . and further development of the AJP8 seems to be out of the question.
Anyways, the Honda and Beemer mills are all produced in huge quantities compared to the S6. Development was done properly because of large cash available (major car-manufacturers, TVR is very small even niche), the Honda mills are all 4pots - except for the NSX - and thus produce <380 hp. That explains price.
What I don't get is why TVR wouldn't - well actually didn't - sell the S6 to other brands? If they did so a few years ago they wouldn't be in the S6-mess they're in right now. Nobody seems to trust the engine nowadays, and there are lots of alternatives with similar power and better reference.
Well, what do I know . . .
Dinkel,
The S2000 engine was fully bespoke (no rwd 4-pot for ages previously), so is comparatively small-volume. And THAT is the highest specific displacement N/A engine from anyone shy of a supercar maker!
The Original Integra and Civic Type R engines (DC2 and EK9) were partially hand-built because of the tolerances required. Not mass-produced - only the block and a handful of simple components were common with the mainstream cars...and given ~1,500 ITRs sold in the UK, perhaps 20,000 globally, that's not THAT high a volume.
As for overall power...what difference does that make? Is it inherently more difficult to make a larger engine produce the same specific displacement? I don't think so. '380 bhp' means nothing when you're dealing with a 4-litre engine.
OK - take the Toyota 3-litre straight-6 from the Supra - in turbo form it's strong enough to produce >500bhp reliably, and up to 1,000bhp if carefully rebuilt. Ditto the RB26DETT from the Skyline. These are also fairly low-volume engines, yet were built to be bombproof by manufacturers that cared about engineering and ESPECIALLY QA/QC.
The S2000 engine was fully bespoke (no rwd 4-pot for ages previously), so is comparatively small-volume. And THAT is the highest specific displacement N/A engine from anyone shy of a supercar maker!
The Original Integra and Civic Type R engines (DC2 and EK9) were partially hand-built because of the tolerances required. Not mass-produced - only the block and a handful of simple components were common with the mainstream cars...and given ~1,500 ITRs sold in the UK, perhaps 20,000 globally, that's not THAT high a volume.
As for overall power...what difference does that make? Is it inherently more difficult to make a larger engine produce the same specific displacement? I don't think so. '380 bhp' means nothing when you're dealing with a 4-litre engine.
OK - take the Toyota 3-litre straight-6 from the Supra - in turbo form it's strong enough to produce >500bhp reliably, and up to 1,000bhp if carefully rebuilt. Ditto the RB26DETT from the Skyline. These are also fairly low-volume engines, yet were built to be bombproof by manufacturers that cared about engineering and ESPECIALLY QA/QC.
Gassing Station | Speed Six Engine | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff