The NSX is making a return...

[CodeRedR51]

So similar to this car...

 

[eSZee]

RDJ's hair is so dreamy looking...........

 

[Keef]

I don't think Hybrid drivetrains are effective in sports cars.

Sure they work great for commuter and luxury cars but I don't see why you would want it in a supercar flagship.

Consider the meaning of the word "flagship", and the reason for putting your greatest technology into that car will make perfect sense.

The linear-decaying torque curve of an electric motor isn't very well suited to enthusiastic driving.

Luckily when you strap a low-rpm grunting electric motor to a high-strung combustion engine, you end up with the most gutsy flat-as-a-board powerband you've ever seen. If you think the GT-R gets off the line quickly...

...but it's still going to go down as revs raise.

...while that engine I mentioned is going up as the revs raise.

However, if they used this technology in, say, a flagship luxury sedan...

...it would be completely irrelevant like the LS600h, which offers no meaningful benefits over the German competition.

...(something Acura desperately needs for brand identity it seems) that compteted at least with the LS, S classes, and 7 series of the world, I could see the point.

Acura is not at a place in its life to support such a car. They've already carved themselves a small niche, and to support such a luxury barge would require more than a single car. They'd have to reinvent their image, which is currently as the maker of psuedo-executive, front-drive, sporty V6 sedans and crossovers. There is a massive gap between Toyota and Lexus than Honda has not accomplished with Acura.

Remember when Honda made driver's cars?

I remember when they made some pretty cool hot hatches, but besides that, no. The NSX and the S2000 are the only actual sports cars turned out by the company in 20+ years.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Consider the meaning of the word "flagship", and the reason for putting your greatest technology into that car will make perfect sense.


Luckily when you strap a low-rpm grunting electric motor to a high-strung combustion engine, you end up with the most gutsy flat-as-a-board powerband you've ever seen. If you think the GT-R gets off the line quickly...


...while that engine I mentioned is going up as the revs raise.


...it would be completely irrelevant like the LS600h, which offers no meaningful benefits over the German competition.


Acura is not at a place in its life to support such a car. They've already carved themselves a small niche, and to support such a luxury barge would require more than a single car. They'd have to reinvent their image, which is currently as the maker of psuedo-executive, front-drive, sporty V6 sedans and crossovers. There is a massive gap between Toyota and Lexus than Honda has not accomplished with Acura.


I remember when they made some pretty cool hot hatches, but besides that, no. The NSX and the S2000 are the only actual sports cars turned out by the company in 20+ years.

There is a difference between making something fast and making something fun. I can't really say though, never driven a fun hybrid. What do the drivers say about the GT3 hybrid cup cars?

Did I say sports cars? Nope...
Civic Si
Civic Type R
RSX
Integra GSR
Integra Type R
S2000
NSX
Accord R
TL-S

And multiple generations of all of the above.

 

[JJ72]

The hybrid in that GT3 isn't going to ruin the handling except maybe affect the feeling on braking a little bit.

As the weight issue is solved hybrid can eventually be made fun to drive, and the market also need to evolve for such niche to exist of course.

 

[Azuremen]

How about algae based diesel then? When they produce it they get waste in the form of ethanol... The only issue currently is production, since there are only two plants in the world that I know of. But it is a viable option, and seeing how clean cars run today, I can´t see why not. A VW Passat bluemotion diesel emits less CO2 than someone taking a bicycle ride... A dog owner has a bigger CO2 print than a car owner these days.

Pollution isn't the issue. Well, a bit. The fact is combustion engines are just terribly inefficient. Like, under 20% for the most part. Means 80% of the energy released is just lost as heat. The reason they are so popular and successful is because combustibles were cheap and batteries were terrible. While batteries still have a bit to go, there isn't too much more than can be done with a combustion engine.

Oh, and I pretty sure he means hydrogen fuel cells, since that is mostly what the research is about. These cells produce hydrogen for the car on the fly, and you only have to fill it with water from time to time.

I know what fuel cells are. You clearly do not - they are designed to use stored hydrogen to produce electricity to run an electric motor. Converting water to hydrogen and then to electricity makes no sense, as you'd lose more than you'd gain than from just producing the hydrogen off site. And then that is just another issue.

Fuel cells are effectively an alternative to modern batteries for electric cars. They are in no way an alternative to gasoline for a combustion engine.

 

[Keef]

Did I say sports cars? Nope...
Civic Si
Civic Type R
RSX
Integra GSR
Integra Type R
S2000
NSX
Accord R
TL-S

And multiple generations of all of the above.

And what "driver's car" has survived through the lives of all those cars you mentioned, and then some?

The Miata, of course. Honda specializes in building economy cars with big engines. Mazda specializes in building driver's cars.

 

[JJ72]

Honda and "big engine" doesn't belong in the same sentence.

most of the hondas I can see on the street are around 1600cc or less, with all the jazz/fit on the street.

mazda build their share of heavy sedans too.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

And what "driver's car" has survived through the lives of all those cars you mentioned, and then some?

The Miata, of course. Honda specializes in building economy cars with big engines. Mazda specializes in building driver's cars.

How is this relevant to the future NSX again?

 

[McLaren]

There is a difference between making something fast and making something fun. I can't really say though, never driven a fun hybrid. What do the drivers say about the GT3 hybrid cup cars?

That's kind of beside the point. You said

I don't think Hybrid drivetrains are effective in sports cars.

And judging by the GT3 Hybrid cars & the upcoming 918 Spyder, Porsche disagrees. There was nothing disclosed about whether or not they were actually fun, though I imagine they'd be rather exciting cars to drive based on Porsche's history.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

That's kind of beside the point. You said


And judging by the GT3 Hybrid cars & the upcoming 918 Spyder, Porsche disagrees. There was nothing disclosed about whether or not they were actually fun, though I imagine they'd be rather exciting cars to drive based on Porsche's history.

Perhaps I stated that badly. I just think of the original NSX as a very pure, raw, sports car. I mean it was sophisticated yes, but sophisticated in ways that made it actually a mechanically simpler car; IE: aluminum body, vtec technology etc. And everything was designed for the purpose of making it as involving for the driver as possible. I also don't think sports cars and race cars have the same goal. But that is a different topic to debate.

The low end grunt benefit of an electric drivetrain is outweighed in hard driving it would seem. In those situations, I would think that the revs would never be low enough for the electric systems to provide any benefit, but the added weight would be effecting the dynamics of the car constantly.

So essentially, to my thinking, the benefit of the hybrid system is part time only, while the detriment is always there.

On the other hand, this could invite an entire paradigm shift in how one drives a sports car. Instead of using lots of revs, you would just use the torque to blast out of the corners. I can't see this as being terribly exciting, but maybe I'm missing out.

 

[JJ72]

that has already happened, quite some years ago, somewhere around mid 90's.

except Ferrari, Lambo, BMW and a small portion of hondas, what else is high reving nowadays? Even alfas, fiat suzuki etc are more torque orientated.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Well I'll hold on to Ferrari then!

 

[Keef]

How is this relevant to the future NSX again?

How is an ITR relevant to the future NSX?

My point was that this will be the third sports car Honda has produced in the last 20+ years, and you're blabbering on about the hybrid drive as if Honda has gone and screwed up some sacred formula.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

I would argue the NSX is a sacred formula...I mean it is kind of a legend, no?. It was partially the inspiration for the Mclaren F1..arguably the most legendary car of all time. Maybe that doesn't matter though. The NSX isn't really well known to average people. It wouldn't be a big deal to call the next TL an NSX as far as marketing goes.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Pollution isn't the issue. Well, a bit. The fact is combustion engines are just terribly inefficient. Like, under 20% for the most part. Means 80% of the energy released is just lost as heat. The reason they are so popular and successful is because combustibles were cheap and batteries were terrible. While batteries still have a bit to go, there isn't too much more than can be done with a combustion engine.

How about heat regeneration then? And lighter engines? I´m sure efficiency of the ICE can be increased quite alot. Hydrogen and electricity seem to be about three times more efficient, but hydrogen is seemingly too expensive. Ford has terminated all their research on the matter.

I know what fuel cells are. You clearly do not - they are designed to use stored hydrogen to produce electricity to run an electric motor. Converting water to hydrogen and then to electricity makes no sense, as you'd lose more than you'd gain than from just producing the hydrogen off site. And then that is just another issue.

Fuel cells are effectively an alternative to modern batteries for electric cars. They are in no way an alternative to gasoline for a combustion engine.

Admittedly I just threw out something I saw on television years ago, but nonethless, hydrogen fuel cells are way more efficient than ICE´s, comparable to e-cars infact (+60%). The thing that works against hydrogen is simply costs.
I still don´t think either hybrids or hydrogen cars have any future. The e-car will also have to change significantly to have a future.

 

[Azuremen]

How about heat regeneration then? And lighter engines? I´m sure efficiency of the ICE can be increased quite alot. Hydrogen and electricity seem to be about three times more efficient, but hydrogen is seemingly too expensive. Ford has terminated all their research on the matter.

There is a limit to the gains that can be had because of the very nature of thermodynamics. Those other things you've mentioned are already being tested. BMW had worked at one point of shooting water into cylinders to use some of the residual heat for another round of expansion, via steam.

Needless to say, you aren't going to see more then 30% efficiency in the real world. Electric motors are over 80% efficient if I recall correctly.

Admittedly I just threw out something I saw on television years ago, but nonethless, hydrogen fuel cells are way more efficient than ICE´s, comparable to e-cars infact (+60%). The thing that works against hydrogen is simply costs.
I still don´t think either hybrids or hydrogen cars have any future. The e-car will also have to change significantly to have a future.

You don't seem to be getting it. Fuel Cells are used to power electric motors. They aren't motors or engines, they convert hydrogen and oxygen into electric energy. Not mechanical. Like I said before, they are an alternative to a battery for an electric motor. They do not produce hydrogen for combustion.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Every time I see this picture:

I can't help but think there is a modified Audi R8 under there, somewhere. The entire front end looks to have the exact same shape and proportions, and even the doors and windscreen look dead on similar.

For comparison:

 

[JJ72]

hybrid GT3 tested by autocar, seem fitting to the discussion.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

There is a limit to the gains that can be had because of the very nature of thermodynamics. Those other things you've mentioned are already being tested. BMW had worked at one point of shooting water into cylinders to use some of the residual heat for another round of expansion, via steam.

Needless to say, you aren't going to see more then 30% efficiency in the real world. Electric motors are over 80% efficient if I recall correctly.



You don't seem to be getting it. Fuel Cells are used to power electric motors. They aren't motors or engines, they convert hydrogen and oxygen into electric energy. Not mechanical. Like I said before, they are an alternative to a battery for an electric motor. They do not produce hydrogen for combustion.

I knew about the BMW research actually. There are also other methods out there. Not really important. The issue here is that i cannot see any viable option to ICE´s, so why not try to make the most of them?

I´m sorry, I must have been unclear. The difference between a hydrogen fuel cell car and an all electric is where the power comes from. A hydrogen fuel cell can at optimum have an efficiency between 60 and 64%. The all electric cars efficiency depends on where it gets it´s power. If the power comes from coal or oil, we go down to ICE levels of efficiency, but if we go to renewable sources, we can get around 80%.
And in the end, they are mechanical anyway. How else do you get the wheels to turn?

 

[Azuremen]

Can someone else explain to him how fuel cells work? Please?

If you are blowing up hydrogen, it is a combustion engine. It can't be more efficient than a gasoline engine because it is basically the same thing.

Fuel cells produce electric energy. Which drives an electric motor.

You get water formed from a reaction between hydrogen and water in a fuel cell, and it produces electricity. The end.

 

[Imari]

Can someone else explain to him how fuel cells work? Please?

If you are blowing up hydrogen, it is a combustion engine. It can't be more efficient than a gasoline engine because it is basically the same thing.

Fuel cells produce electric energy. Which drives an electric motor.

You get water formed from a reaction between hydrogen and water in a fuel cell, and it produces electricity. The end.

His point, as I understood it, was that a fuel cell is more efficient at generating electricity than a coal fired power plant. I have no idea if that's true or not, but that's how I understood it. The machinery downstream of the electricity source is the same for both cars, so the efficiency is largely determined by how efficiently you can generate electricity.

I mean really, if you're burning oil to make electricity to power a car, the car is still being powered by combustion, just in a rather oblique way. The argument could be made that the extra steps and conversions are actually a hindrance to the efficiency of the process, instead of simply burning the oil in the car itself.

 

[Azuremen]

I mean really, if you're burning oil to make electricity to power a car, the car is still being powered by combustion, just in a rather oblique way. The argument could be made that the extra steps and conversions are actually a hindrance to the efficiency of the process, instead of simply burning the oil in the car itself.

Which is why, I believe, I mentioned a change in the power infrastructure. Most of the world is still using coal, I am aware of this. I'm hoping to see it replaced with nuclear. Though my state is 90% hydro-electric with the remaining bit being nuclear and natural gas.

Fuel Cells themselves are about 60% efficient, which is still quite a bit more than blowing stuff up. But there are other issues with them as well, least of all with storing hydrogen safely for them to use. But again, they are replacing ICE with electric motors, just like a car with batteries would.

 

[Mt. Lynx]

Thank you Imari, that was the point I was trying to make. And I already said that battery powered cars are about three times more efficient than ICE´s. If they get their power from the right places.

Yes, the power infrastructure has to change. Water, wind, sun, combined with nuclear is most likely the way to go for now. Until that is done, e-cars are as crap as ICE cars in terms of emissions and efficiency. At least ICE is honest. E-cars and hybrids are just sales tricks. This is why I think ICE can be further developed to be greener, like algae based fuels and biodiesel, combined with KERS and heat regeneration. That can be pretty efficient.

As far as hybrids go, I like the Jaguar C-X75 concept, where the ICE´s (in that case turbines) only purpose is to charge the batteries. The production car will not have turbines though.

 

[Neal]

His point, as I understood it, was that a fuel cell is more efficient at generating electricity than a coal fired power plant. I have no idea if that's true or not, but that's how I understood it. The machinery downstream of the electricity source is the same for both cars, so the efficiency is largely determined by how efficiently you can generate electricity.

I mean really, if you're burning oil to make electricity to power a car, the car is still being powered by combustion, just in a rather oblique way. The argument could be made that the extra steps and conversions are actually a hindrance to the efficiency of the process, instead of simply burning the oil in the car itself.

Guess what you need to make hydrogen? Electricity, and that electricity comes from power stations

BTW I'm all in favour of hydrogen fuel cell powered electric cars as they are as practical as ICE in terms of refuelling. Until carbon nanotube super capacitors are a viable form of electrical energy storage, therefore making recharging times a non-issue, battery powered EV's just don't work for me.

 

[Philly]

As far as hybrids go, I like the Jaguar C-X75 concept, where the ICE´s (in that case turbines) only purpose is to charge the batteries. The production car will not have turbines though.

I believe that series hybrid cars like the C-X75 and Volt are a great design. This technology is already used in trains (and I'm sure other sources as well), so it makes sense to try and put it in a car. Unfortunately though, the Volt didn't end up being a very effective demonstration of the technology. I'd like to see what it can do with a diesel generator.

BTW I'm all in favour of hydrogen fuel cell powered electric cars as they are as practical as ICE in terms of refuelling.

The thing about fuel cells is that hydrogen is more of a battery than a fuel source. It also (currently) requires hydrocarbons to produce and the production gives off greenhouse gasses.

 

[masterrawad]

in a bad way.

 

[Imari]

It also (currently) requires hydrocarbons to produce and the production gives off greenhouse gasses.

Everything requires hydrocarbons to produce, since the overwhelming majority of the world's electricity is produced by burning hydrocarbons. Strictly speaking, it requires energy to produce and it doesn't really matter where that energy comes from.

It's possible to produce hydrogen cleanly, just as it's possible to produce electricity cleanly.

 

[Azuremen]

It's possible to produce hydrogen cleanly, just as it's possible to produce electricity cleanly.

Clean production of hydrogen requires electricity. And you aren't going to get enough of that from clean sources, unless you are considering nuclear a clean source.

 

[Keef]

The most widely used method of producing hydrogen is with methane, a fossil fuel. It's not perfect because it generates a lot of carbon dioxide. This dude wrote a book and in it said that producing hydrogen using methane actually makes more carbon dioxide than just burning the natural gas directly.

Even if it didn't, it would make more sense to just burn the natural gas instead of breaking it down to make hydrogen. That's just an extra step you don't really need.

There are other methods of making hydrogen by using fossil fuels, including by burning coal. But that's stupid, because coal makes pretty good electricity which is already used to power pretty much everything and has a pretty awesome infrastructure to support it. So how about you just use the coal to make electricity because we already do that on a grand scale.

You could also make hydrogen via electrolysis, but that's also a stupid idea which is why it's rarely used. Producing any useable amount of hydrogen via electrolysis requires immense amounts of electricity, which of course is usually created using the aforementioned coal. Seems like we should just use the electricity then, right? On top of that, the most efficient forms of electrolysis are still vastly less efficient than using natural gas, which of course we can already use as a fuel, etc, etc...

As you can see, hydrogen makes very little sense as a mass-market fuel source. It's rare naturally, which means we have to make it, and we make it by using fuels which are already useful and commonly used in themselves. Clearly, it makes more sense to just keep using them instead of making things even more complicated.