Why don't I like Honda K20's

[s29ttc]

I am not getting this thread at all, I am not technical but common sense says this doesn't tie up.

I am reading that this one guy has been working n a k series engine for circa 10 years and managed to develop the best and most reliable engine. The Honda engine which I can only assume has had hundreds of the best engineers working to develop it and a huge development fund have got it totally wrong with their design despite the engine been fitted in many cars with great results and many happy owners.

This guy has made the claims despite never actually have concrete information to back this all up.

It feels like a wasted rant. The way this man is portraying the claims with snide digs is getting people's back up and they would rather see this engines working in a car with data to back up the claims rather than the long drawn out moans and remarks.

My view, stop the moans and arguments, put the effort into the engine, fit it in a car, get it working, show the data and let people see it work, then there would be more constructive discussion based on facts rather than the constant digs at people's ability, ideas, designs when you can't prove that the other is better.

Well then with all due respect maybe you should take a rest from it, this is a technical thread, it is not about comparisons with the Rover K series, it is not a rant, it is my view on some technical aspects of the design of the Honda K 20A2 and why I personally don't like the engine, now if anyone wants to take issue with my technical points, I'd love to have a discussion, for instance if someone wants to argue that the oil breakouts in the Hondas cranks are in the optimal position, or refute my view that the crank is undercounterweighted or that pistons weighing 437gmm is a good thing, I will enjoy a lively discussion. That is what this thread is for.


I have shown you one of my early 2L engines, which was driven by Pro drivers not weekend waanabees,
here is a pic to remind you


but this thread is not about my engines, nor comparisons between K and K20, except on the strict basis of weight, the subject of which I believe has been widely misrepresented. I will start a new thread in due course to present my engines, when I have finished what I a doing, which will also be a technical thread - ie not a thread including K20, then perhaps we can have a further thread to compare them in cars on track with some independent tests and the views of some professional drivers.

Until then technical discussion of the design of the K20A2 and it;s impact on the Elise is very welcome, - I mean that I really would love anyone to challenge me on my technical views about this engine if they feel able, and to develop a thoroughly lively and informed debate about the K20a2's merits or otherwise.

Yes it is correct I am not technical nor have the ability to argue against what you have written. My post was written in relation to the way this thread is coming across to me. There is an interest for me reading as a learning curve, despite not yet having technical knowledge that doesn't mean I do not read technical discussions with interest.

The main vibe I get is you have taken digs at an engine which has proven successfully in many applications, which people have had great experience of. There is this one guy posting all what is wrong with the engine and how they have really made some silly errors with the design. I can't believe the engine can be so wrong, with probably some of the best engineers involved and the development budget which must have been utilised and this random guy building engines in a garage can be so right and produce a far superior engine. If it where that good why are you not working for a huge company on a fat salary with access to all the equipment you need. Companies must pour millions of pounds developing engines so if you can do it so far better why are they not using your design or knowledge to design there engines? Have Honda really got it so wrong with the engine. I am sure there are many valid reasons behind many of the features you point out and there would be other considerations made other than weight etc to justify each decision/component design.

I am sure you can appreciate from a common sense perspective this doesn't tie up and the reasons are there is not the concrete evidence of your superior design. Honda on the other hand have this engine working in many applications sucessfully and that's why there is a struggle to understand what is so wrong with it.

As I say I feel it would be more interesting for you to have hard evidence of the engine working and showing why this is a better design against this and prove why it works. Until then I just can't believe that some guy working in his shed is producing this far superior designed engine against somebody like honda.

[KingK_series]

Yes it is correct I am not technical nor have the ability to argue against what you have written. My post was written in relation to the way this thread is coming across to me. There is an interest for me reading as a learning curve, despite not yet having technical knowledge that doesn't mean I do not read technical discussions with interest.

The main vibe I get is you have taken digs at an engine which has proven successfully in many applications, which people have had great experience of. There is this one guy posting all what is wrong with the engine and how they have really made some silly errors with the design. I can't believe the engine can be so wrong, with probably some of the best engineers involved and the development budget which must have been utilised and this random guy building engines in a garage can be so right and produce a far superior engine. If it where that good why are you not working for a huge company on a fat salary with access to all the equipment you need. Companies must pour millions of pounds developing engines so if you can do it so far better why are they not using your design or knowledge to design there engines? Have Honda really got it so wrong with the engine. I am sure there are many valid reasons behind many of the features you point out and there would be other considerations made other than weight etc to justify each decision/component design.

I am sure you can appreciate from a common sense perspective this doesn't tie up and the reasons are there is not the concrete evidence of your superior design. Honda on the other hand have this engine working in many applications sucessfully and that's why there is a struggle to understand what is so wrong with it.

As I say I feel it would be more interesting for you to have hard evidence of the engine working and showing why this is a better design against this and prove why it works. Until then I just can't believe that some guy working in his shed is producing this far superior designed engine against somebody like honda.

Well let me try and answer this, but please can we go back to the technical debate thereafter.


There is no doubt that the K20 works, and fulfils it's brief, but most engines do, - the K does [and there are many people who get good use to 100,000 miles plus before even thinking about renewal], but like all production engines K20 has it's shortcomings.

Why is that? Simple - cost. All production engines are severely cost limited, that means that Honda engineers, like Rover engineers and Mercedes - everyone - make choices about where to spend money. All designs are subject to cost downs in production development. So while K has it's issues so does the K20, and I have written about them in this thread. Does the fact that the K20 produce 197bhp in stock form make it a better engine than the 120bhp K? No, they were designed to a specification and so the K20 is a higher revving more powerful engine in stock form , but it is heavy, was designed for a heavy car, - it has heavy pistons which give it very high secondaries, a heavy crank which makes it slow to rev, and no flywheel dowel which makes it pointless to try to dynamically balance etc etc etc. Whereas K was designed for a new generation of aluminum bonded chassis cars that were extremely lightweight that consequently made very efficient family cars but was not conceived of as a track engine. The fact is both engines are bent to track use, the question is which engine does the job better? A stock K20 with all the inherent production limitations of any production engine, with a few bolt ons, or an extremely lightweight engine that can be tuned with the benefit of parts not limited by production limitations?

This is the thing, the Elise is a very different car than anything else on the road, I'd like to think it a bit special, and that is not just because my uncle was responsible for the idea and concept that was given by Rover to Lotus and became the Elise. It is lighter and for the most part stiffer than tin tops and deserves respect for that. So do you content yourself with a production engine concept [K20 or K] no matter which - or do you think well I'd like to make more of the engine in my car - by bolting on a supercharger, or rebuilding and tuning it? I think it is very understandable that people should want more than a production engine, of course some may be forced to think about it if they suffer what is mistakenly called "HGF". But there need not be coercion, a replacement stock K will serve just as well to make an Elise mobile as a K20, so it comes down to choice.

Now in the scheme of things it has been a generally accepted truth that it is always preferable to stay with the original engine and develop that rather than convert. Lanzante's [http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lanzan/Mclaren.htm] with whom I do a lot of work, who look after some of the most exquisite race cars in the world always take this view [and have told Scuffers BTW] and that was certainly the way with the Elise [Scuffers included] in the early years, however so much of the aftermarket "tuning" of K was done so badly, so mindbogglingly badly that the K developed a reputation for failing - enter Scuffers with the K20 conversion.

Now it has been my view that the failures that happened with K were entirely due to a lack of competence exhibited by so many trying to tune the K and I have tried to illustrate that on the K thread - equally no other engine subject to the same poor practice and aftermarket parts would fare any better - fit a K20 with pistons with too small valve pockets hacked out by hand, without doing a clearance test, and you are just as likely to bend or break all the valves in that K20 as any other engine - is that such a strange idea to grasp?

Of course Scuffers will come back and say that "THATS THE WHOLE POINT" ie you don't have to put aftermarket pistons in a K20 [Well quite apart from the fact that Maidstone Sports Cars do fit aftermarket rods and pistons increasingly frequently] the stock K20 engine conversion is extremely expensive at £25,542 for a sccc engine or £12252 for an na engine [with lightweight flywheel, new clutch and oil cooler] so I am saying that you can have a tuned K for way more power than the best 240bhp na honda or 400bhp sccc honda for less money, that is in addition not merely cheaper [because the profit margins on these turnkey conversions must be enormous] but you also have the chance to use better than in any OEM production engine components [ ie ideally counterweighted steel cranks, stronger, better oiling, much smoother imparting much less stress and vibration to the engine because it is not undercounterweighted like most I4s, including both K and K20] dry sumps, Kobi race wire valve springs etc etc and have a much stronger stiffer better balanced less stressed, longer lasting engine than any made made by any OEM car maker. And one that happens to be 60odd kg lighter - because it is a Rover K series, and in my world that's a vote winner.


But in order to make that point, I needed to counter this idea that the K is all bad and the K20 all good. As an aside because it is a separate issue from production engines, - it is a huge mistake to think that Honda engine engineers are the best out there - far from it. One of my partners in developing the new generation of K has a long history of F1 engine design, he counts most of the F1 circle as his friends, including Mario IIien, David's son Ben designed the Brawn championship winning car, but before that was head of Super Aguri, in those years - the years Button struggled around in that oh so slow Honda F1 car, they were all too aware that the Honda F1 engine was waaaaay behind all the other manufacturers - so much so that Mario was asked to fly out to Japan to look at their engine - that is unprecedented for the virtual opposition to be asked to help out. As it was Mario found 30bhp overnight [red faced Honda engineers] and left them with directions for a further 30 of the 80bhp deficit. True story.


So this thread is about the technicalities of the K20 and where those technicalities are in fact limitations.

New threads will deal with new generaton Ks and how they stack up.

now please if you don't get this or are just plain not interested just don't read the thread.

[s29ttc]

I think most of your post is very interesting and has points for discussion. What you still are not understanding though are people are wanting to discuss the points in interest on a forum not come on and be abused.

Why end your post with "now if you don't get this or are just plain not interested just don't read the thread" when I say above I am interested in the technical discussion, it just doesn't make sense. I am an engineer with no knowledge of engines but still these discussions have interest hence my input to the thread.

I put points on the table for discussion and I think it would be better if you discussed facts and opinions rather than have diggs, cheeky remarks at people on your thread, it just ruins the discussion and I don't see the need. I don't know scuffers however I don't want involved in any debates, issues or swipes and rather reads facts without the childish diggs.

Your argument seems to be what engine is suited to the Elise with modification? You feel the rover will give more power, lower weight at less cost against the Honda as the design is suited and designed for other cars, not track use in an Elise.

One question remains to be answered is, if the engine is really that great and so much of a break through, why are you not working with a car manufacture to develop this and earn yourself some pennies whilst having access to all the correct tools?

It seems many have tried before without success hence moving to the Honda engine where they have had success. Why do you believe your solution will work? There is no evidence or back-up so I assume this is just your belief and claims? Surely what everyone else thought when they where tuning them with their issues?

[KingK_series]

I think most of your post is very interesting and has points for discussion. What you still are not understanding though are people are wanting to discuss the points in interest on a forum not come on and be abused.

Why end your post with "now if you don't get this or are just plain not interested just don't read the thread" when I say above I am interested in the technical discussion, it just doesn't make sense. I am an engineer with no knowledge of engines but still these discussions have interest hence my input to the thread.

I put points on the table for discussion and I think it would be better if you discussed facts and opinions rather than have diggs, cheeky remarks at people on your thread, it just ruins the discussion and I don't see the need. I don't know scuffers however I don't want involved in any debates, issues or swipes and rather reads facts without the childish diggs.

Your argument seems to be what engine is suited to the Elise with modification? You feel the rover will give more power, lower weight at less cost against the Honda as the design is suited and designed for other cars, not track use in an Elise.

One question remains to be answered is, if the engine is really that great and so much of a break through, why are you not working with a car manufacture to develop this and earn yourself some pennies whilst having access to all the correct tools?

It seems many have tried before without success hence moving to the Honda engine where they have had success. Why do you believe your solution will work? There is no evidence or back-up so I assume this is just your belief and claims? Surely what everyone else thought when they where tuning them with their issues?

Good, I am very glad to hear it


But no you are still not getting the point. -

scuffers and co say the K is a bad engine and will always blow up [because that was his experience] so don't waste your money, buy a Honda which you Don't have to open


I say, that's wrong, the K breaks because [aside from cooling/HGF issue] it breaks only because the aftermarket tuning is so poor and done with really badly made aftermarket parts. That strong Ks have been around for a long time - in due course I'll put up pics of a 400bhp 1.4L turbo K that has been raced and not been apart since it was built 13 years ago!, and my touring car engine is proof of what I was doing even 6 years ago - and I have got a lot further since,

And that by doing a decent job with K you not only get the power and torque, but you get 60 kg less in the car and the benefit of carefully designed aftermarket parts that are better in terms of what they do than ANY OEM production parts. K20 included!

And finally that Hondas ARE being expensively opened, and rods pistons being replaced, - adding to the already very considerable conversion cost.

Why don't I do this for a living? because I choose not to, - but on the other hand because of family contacts and a lot of work, I have access to the very best design, development and manufacturing in the country, most of the companies I work with are suppliers or work in F1.

and finally - why did everyone going down this route before give up - for the reasons I have carefully illustrated on the "why I don't like what gets done to the Rover K' thread.

[s29ttc]

I think the issue here is many have tried with the k series and failed but only in your opinion is this with bad component design. There are people who have moved to Honda engines with success and realiabilty at the desired performance levels. Your arguments are just words on a forum at the moment where as people's views on the Honda conversation come from experience.

I believe it will stay like this until you prove your theory's in practise which you seem to be doing. I will be watching the thread with interest to see how it pans out, hopefully in the near future. Until then I suspect there will always be a conflict of opinion based on people's real experience of tuning a k series which proved problematic.

[KingK_series]

I think the issue here is many have tried with the k series and failed but only in your opinion is this with bad component design. There are people who have moved to Honda engines with success and realiabilty at the desired performance levels. Your arguments are just words on a forum at the moment where as people's views on the Honda conversation come from experience.

I believe it will stay like this until you prove your theory's in practise which you seem to be doing. I will be watching the thread with interest to see how it pans out, hopefully in the near future. Until then I suspect there will always be a conflict of opinion based on people's real experience of tuning a k series which proved problematic.

I think the "why I don't like what gets done to the K series" thread is a very clear illustration of the sheer incompetence of efforts generally directed at the Rover engine with clearly illustrated results -

[Scuffers]

I believe it will stay like this until you prove your theory's in practise which you seem to be doing. I will be watching the thread with interest to see how it pans out, hopefully in the near future.

All very reasonable, until you consider that we (as in the general Lotus Forum world) have been waiting for this since at least 2004.

in all that time, we have yet to see a single example of one of these wonder engines.

the reality is that the world has moved on, Lotus went 2ZZ, that's now gone, on to the next engine.

[KingK_series]

I believe it will stay like this until you prove your theory's in practise which you seem to be doing. I will be watching the thread with interest to see how it pans out, hopefully in the near future.

All very reasonable, until you consider that we (as in the general Lotus Forum world) have been waiting for this since at least 2004.

in all that time, we have yet to see a single example of one of these wonder engines.

the reality is that the world has moved on, Lotus went 2ZZ, that's now gone, on to the next engine.

Nonsense scuffers

you have seen the BTCC engine which was way more than anything you have been involved with -

[Scuffers]

I believe it will stay like this until you prove your theory's in practise which you seem to be doing. I will be watching the thread with interest to see how it pans out, hopefully in the near future.

All very reasonable, until you consider that we (as in the general Lotus Forum world) have been waiting for this since at least 2004.

in all that time, we have yet to see a single example of one of these wonder engines.

the reality is that the world has moved on, Lotus went 2ZZ, that's now gone, on to the next engine.

Nonsense scuffers

you have seen the BTCC engine which was way more than anything you have been involved with -

no, what we have seen is a couple of pictures of an old and now binned off ex.BTCC car and engine, with zero evidence of any involvement from yourself.

try again.

[Rusty]

god this thread is pish (well i only read this page and not reading rest as its all), moan moan moan, grump grump grump, dig dig dig, moan moan moan.

why not go out and drive the car and what ever engine you like.

if you have worked with btcc then well done for you, and if you are still waiting to see photos of this then seriously since 2004, you need to get out more!

if all else fails, how about some bare knuckle boxing between you 2 at tut towers! winner gets to smash the others head in with their engine of choice!

[KingK_series]

if you have worked with btcc then well done for you, and if you are still waiting to see photos of this then seriously since 2004, you need to get out more!

I do'nt understand this comment - what do you mean?


The pics of the BTCC engine were simply put up [with graphs naming it as my engine, so what are you on about there Scuffers? or are you just in denial?] to illustrate what can be done with the K given a reasonably competent approach, which it is my contention has generally been denied the Rover K series - and Scuffer's experiences are clear proof of that. The K thread is intended as illustration of prolific and systematic bad engine building. It's not that hard to understand is it?"

[KingK_series]

It is not clear to me why you all care.

Let Simon E post his views on how engines work. Let Simon S post his. You don't have to agree. We know you don't.

I will delete any post that contains anything other than technical OPINION. Even if your post contatins OPINION plus bickering I'll still delete it.

I started with the previous 5 or so posts.

I haven't been through them all, so no doubt there are others that fall outside of content that's relevant for technical.

Cheers,
Robin

Thankyou Robin

[KingK_series]

Until then technical discussion of the design of the K20A2 and it;s impact on the Elise is very welcome, - I mean that I really would love anyone to challenge me on my technical views about this engine if they feel able, and to develop a thoroughly lively and informed debate about the K20a2's merits or otherwise.

Sadly perhaps, no-one on here (discounting Scuffers) has taken the time to deconstruct it from an engineering point of view, I think you are probably aware of this and aware you are unlikely to see a fact based reproach to your findings on the engine.

Which is something I am trying to change

thankyou for the observation

[KingK_series]

So any Hondaistas brave enough yet? to admit their alone engine is 40 odd kg heavier than a stock Rover K series and 45/50kg heavier as an install over a stock Rover K/ PG1/starter and alternator????????

[KingK_series]

So any Hondaistas brave enough yet? to admit their alone engine is 40 odd kg heavier than a stock Rover K series and 45/50kg heavier as an install over a stock Rover K/ PG1/starter and alternator????????

never mind 60odd kg heavier than one of mine?