That’s what they always tell me in Japan and I’m inclined to believe them. If it was a safety issue, how come so many Champ-Car drivers managed to drive turbos and live to tell the tale?
Your Comments
2 Comments so far
- 1987 Honda Civic + B18c1 Gsr = ???
- Drag Race Bike Vs Car Who Wins?
- Honda Crx V Tec B16a 211bhp…….?
- Honda S2000 Vs. Mazda Rx7?
- Honda Prelude H22a??
- Car Help? Tuning Up This Honda?
- How Much Boost Can I Run On A B16a2?
- Im Looking For A Project Car Im Debating Between A?
- Which Honda Should I Get?
- Honda Civics?
© 2010 Vitara Pistons. Hosted by GigaPros.
Web Design by Imburne Technical Advisors
Safety and cost were the official reasons, but I didn’t think they were particularly convincing arguments.
I’d say there is at least an element of truth in what they tell you in Japan. After 1987 it was obvious that Honda were going to dominate the sport for a while and lots of engine manufacturers had pulled out and weren’t going to be replaced (Renault, BMW, Porsche). You could see a situation where two Honda powered teams with the best 4 drivers finished 1-2-3-4 at every race with half a dozen Ford or Judd powered teams, Ferrari and a couple of real back-markers just there to make up the numbers.
If the reason for removing turbos was to stop Honda dominating the sport to death, then it was a good call.
Nah, the BMW was making over 1,500 HP in qualifying trim and it was getting real dangerous. If it rained and they had all that HP bad things were going to happen. Costs had escalated out of sight on these wild alloy engines. The internal parts were being made from Berylium(sp) and other outlandish metals that had dangerous toxic properties when the engines catastrophically failed.
Honda may complain, but everyone was out on a ledge with those engines and it was just time to change for safety and money and even entertainment.
Old Guy