Trying to build a Honda F20c

General Chat
1

I’d like some help trying to build the Honda F20c. I’m not sure where I"m going wrong

Going from the wikipedia, we have
Displacement: 1,997 cc (121.9 cu in)
Compression: 11.7:1
Bore: 87 mm (3.4 in)
Stroke: 84 mm (3.3 in)
Rod Length: 153 mm
Rod/stroke ratio: 1.82
Power:
JDM 250 PS (183.88 kW) @ 8,300rpm & 22.2kgm (217.71 Nm) @ 7,500 rpm
USDM 240 HP @ 8,300 rpm; 153 ft lb, 207 Nm @ 7,500 rpm
Redline: 9000 rpm
VTEC: 6100 rpm

From this, I have the following settings:
Current Year 1999
Inline 4, Aluminium, 87mmx84mm, Forged Crank, Forged H-Beam, Forged Pistons
DOHC, 4valves, Al, 11.7:1, 61 on the lower cam, no VVT, VVL, and 100 on the upper cam
Multi EFI, Single TB, Performance Intake, Premium Unleaded, 12.3:1, 83, 9000
Long Headers, No Valve, 3", HF3-way, Reverse, Reverse

I’m only making 235hp.

Some quick observations I have are:

9000rpm Bottom end part is reducing lifespan. Is this right? No combination passes this in 1999
Fuel System. I haven’t been able to get any engine to have a fuel mixture richer than 12.3 with it saying I’m running rich. Is there any factors which can change this?
The F20c header exhaust goes to a 2.5" exhaust, which drops power down to 195hp in Automation

Just some feedback to maybe fix some calculations. If I’ve made any mistake in my setup that anyone sees, can you let me know

2

You don’t have to limit yourself to a 1999 tech year just because the car was released that year. The F20C was far ahead of it’s time considering it took another decade before Ferrari could beat its power/liter. You could also try to max out the quality sliders and see if that helps.

Try: 82cam/100cam, 12.4 fuel mix, 100 timing, 8600rpm limit, 3.25" exhaust, and straight thru mufflers… it might not be 100%, but it should get you 240 or more HP.

3

Nothing is ahead of its time. Either it can exist, or it can’t. The game needs to reflect reality.

4

this is the best i could come up with.

s2000 engine.jpg1234×724 378 KB

5

But there can be something that is better than average for its period. There can be technology that is more advanced than average for its period. Finally, there can be an engine that uses more advanced technology than average technology for its period. Now, the thing is that Automation’s tech year represents average technology for the period, not the most advanced one.

6

the engine is not ahead of ot’s time, it’s using the best tech honda has. the cylinders have molibden and iridium weave to withstand friction for a long time at high rpm and ceramic coated pistons. everyone can make a powerful engine, but making it reliable and adhering to regulations and octane limits it’s the hardest part.

7

But by automation standards it IS ahead of its time, that is how it works in Automation. Regardless of if the real engine is actually “ahead of its time” the point is its better built than the average engine of the era and had more effort and tech invested in it. This is represented in automation by it being ahead of its time…

8

i’ve been trying to do an F20c 3 days ago and i failed hard with only 228 hp :neutral_face:

9

After studying the way it operates and what kind of components it has i`ve hit it spot on.

f20c.jpg1205×691 375 KB

10

and the restroked version f22c

f22c.jpg1199×695 376 KB

11

Hi!!

I tried the F20C with yours initial specs and I did this

Sorry my english :unamused:

Automation Launcher 2012-12-27 16-31-46-82.png1131×841 1.11 MB

12

I don’t mean to threadjack, but I’ve been having problems trying to recreate a couple engines, myself. Was trying to do the 2ZZ-GE from the 7 gen Celica, and the S50B32 from the E36 M3. I had a lot of difficulty trying to get torque figures to match up in terms of RPM, because whenever I’d up the cams to get the horsepower right (at far too high an RPM), the torque peak would also rise.

Oh, also had this problem trying to recreate a Tipo F131 from a 360 Modena. Things seem biassed towards higher-RPM output, and I’m having issues even getting a flattish torque curve on the left side of the graph. Does this fall under ‘nothing is set in stone’? :slight_smile:

With this in mind! Would it be much to ask to have a way to set the VVL engagement point, in RPM?

Cheers!

13

The VVL engagment point is automatically set at the point where it’ll give you the most power. So at every RPM it checks if it would be making more power on the high or low cam right now, and if it’s more on the high cam it swaps.

14

i saw that if i set the high lift cam more aggresive it shifts the engagement point higher. at 100 setting it shifts at about 5000-6000 rpm and at 45 it engages at 3500 rpm. is this true?

15

Yes, it is true. It chooses the higher of two powers, and the high cam reaches its power later, so it engages later.

16

The exact RPM value, where the shift happens, depends mostly on how you set the cam profile for the lower RPM. It automatically shifts to the VVL profile as soon as this profile can produce more torque. So with a standard cam profile of 30 it will shift sooner to the VVL profile than with a standard cam profile of 40.
The other way around, like you said: For a given standard cam profile, more aggressive VVL profiles will be active at higher RPM, because they can’t produce much torque at low RPM but at higher RPM.

Greets
Martin

edit: damn, too slow :slight_smile:

17

[quote=“nbomb”]I don’t mean to threadjack, but I’ve been having problems trying to recreate a couple engines, myself. Was trying to do the 2ZZ-GE from the 7 gen Celica, and the S50B32 from the E36 M3. I had a lot of difficulty trying to get torque figures to match up in terms of RPM, because whenever I’d up the cams to get the horsepower right (at far too high an RPM), the torque peak would also rise.

Oh, also had this problem trying to recreate a Tipo F131 from a 360 Modena. Things seem biassed towards higher-RPM output, and I’m having issues even getting a flattish torque curve on the left side of the graph. Does this fall under ‘nothing is set in stone’? :slight_smile:

With this in mind! Would it be much to ask to have a way to set the VVL engagement point, in RPM?

Cheers![/quote]

I did not try the 2ZZ-GE, but I tried the S50B32… And I have the same problem (even with the M52B28 from the 328i E36, but for this one I think I can blame the intake manifold) : 361Nm at 4900rpm and 321hp at 8200rpm (sort of a mix between the S50B32 and the S54B32 in fact).
For the Tipo F131, don’t forget it has some “special” bypass valves in the exhaust, I don’t know if they are the same in the game.
Anyway, I think it is a better option to get the right torque at the right rpm at first, and then see what happens with the horsepowers :wink:

18

I try to build Tipo F131 engine too. I find that the 3.5 and 3.6 version has 5 valves per cylinders.
I continue experimernts. I will post my work soon.

19

I never before tried to recreate real engines but it was fun challenge. Especially Tipo F131 was pretty tricky to get 400HP at redline while having peak torque at 4750rpm.

F20C should be pretty accurate (but there is lots of room to play around with sliders to improve it), only 7 Nm off on peak torque, even VTEC kicks in at “around 6000 rpm”.

In F131 peak torque is off by bit more but then it was hard enough to get that high end power with such early torque peak.

Both engines are 1999.
Ferrari Tipo F131Rev0.lua (50.3 KB)
Honda F20CRev0.lua (51.1 KB)

20

There you go , here is my best shot:
Year:1999
Displacement: 1,997 cc (121.9 cu in)
Compression: 11.2:1
Bore: 87 mm (3.4 in)
Stroke: 84 mm (3.3 in)
Power: 250 PS @ 8,300rpm
Torque: 224Nm @ 7,400 rpm
Redline: 9000 rpm
Prod.Units:80.2
Material Cost:$987.01
Reliability:57.5
Economy:18.25%

F20C.jpg1365×774 281 KB