new srt-4

[Kosh]

The higher the RPM the higher the HP with the same torque. I had to look it up but some race cars that rev around 16k rpm do have what would be considered low torque but make good hp. You are comparing super cars that don't have anywhere near the rev limit of club racing cars. The most important things is power/weight ratio and keeping the rpm in the optimum range. You can't just look at a engine's top hp and torque rating and know how fast it will make the car go.

As far as the large truck statement goes are you talking about diesel? Diesel engines have a much longer stroke than our engines. Longer stroke means lower rpm. That is why diesel trucks also get more gears.

 

[camrycev6]

Kosh,

I think you are helping me make my point. There are quite a few different types of "race" cars, so unless we narrow it down a bit, it is hard to discuss.

My only point was that saying race cars have high HP and low torque needs to be serious justified and explained, because I just provided at least one true F1 race car, and 3 other super cars (that a lot of folks consider race cars) that don't fit that definition.

Also...diesel or gasoline trucks typically have as much if not more torque than HP. I know all about the physics of a longer stroke as well. Just like cars with more cylinders have higher proportionate torque because the increased amount of angular mass in motion.

 

[Kosh]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

 

[camrycev6]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

I am actually very chilled...I was not flaming anyone...I really was just trying to help. And in essence I was saying that using a few specs can't give you the big picture on racing. The scope of the dicussion was way too broad.

 

[I vtec do you?]

What you posted and what vtec has been saying are sort of touching on the same concept. Torque is a bigger factor than anything at low RPM for producing horsepower. When you get to higher RPM torque is less important to producing horsepower.

Having a higher rpm helps honda engines make more horsepower with the torque that they have but having low torque at low rpm hurts the car. If their cars had the same redline we have then that low torque would not be enough to produce the horsepower to make the car perform the way it does.

I see a lot of people (honda, mazda, dodge, everyone) just look at numbers and try to base an argument on just that. These cars preform in different ways and each car has its own advantage.

I'm not trying to put anyone down in this post but I think we should all just chill out a bit.

THIS is a smart man ^^

All you guys look at are numbers (265 hp vs 197 hp, 280 ft lbs of torque vs. 140). What does that mean? We have a member over on 8thcivic who has run 14.2xx on FIVE different tracks in his SI with only a CAI. The best I've ever seen an MS3 run stock (airbox removed I beleive) is 13.9. I'm sure there are others out there that are better but I haven't looked. So my point is that the MS3 looks better on paper and the SI looks better in real life than the specs show. So they're actually a closer comparison than you think. it's not like the SI runs mid 15s and the MS3 runs low 13s.. they aren't very far off.

Yes, torque is a big factor when you guys need to be shifting at ~5500 RPMs before the motor starts falling in power. However, when the SI runs up to 8200 RPMS and builds HP and Torque the entire way there.. it can do without a lot less and still maintain its quickness. And btw.. I'm really not upset or mad about anything haha, I find it quite funny how Honda's are ragged on a lot because they think the driver's all act as if VTEC is some god-send.. when it's quite the opposite. I've said good things about BOTH cars, whereas no one really on these forums (a few are an exception) can admit to any pluses of the other car, only why there's is better.

As for the SRT-4, I have high, high hopes that it'll be running mid 13s with ease. Somehow, I have a feeling it'll be running close to high 13s and low 14s with a sub-par driver. It just always seems to work that way..

 

[camrycev6]

I agree...people shouldn't make drastic or generalizations off a few numbers. I know I wasn't doing it, so I assume that was directed at someone else. Anyway, here is a good article to read if anyone wishes to educate themselves further. It says what would take me far too long to type here in my own words.

http://vettenet.org/torquehp.html

 

[Kosh]

This is the article I found that helped me understand torque.

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question381.htm

After reading that my respect for honda went up ten fold.

 

[boostdog]

I vetc do you.....do you have a time slip to prove that by chance? I am not starting anything..just wanting to see the proof that the SI went that fast please.

 

[CX-7owner]

I would much rather have a torquey 2.0T DSG GTi, than an anemic feeling torqueless Honda V-Tec engine, It's just a matter of personal preference and what feels better to the pants.

 

[I vtec do you?]

I vetc do you.....do you have a time slip to prove that by chance? I am not starting anything..just wanting to see the proof that the SI went that fast please.

Not that this proves anything.. because it could be from anyone, and for all you know, the guy has I/H/E among countless other things.

These slips are 'bone stock' with drag radials on, I beleive he was running the same times a bit later with a CAI as well..

http://www.8thcivic.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20649

Just goes to show that specs on paper dont mean s***. For such a s*** car.. it's probably running better times than most of you can get in your turbocharged car. (wiggle)

 

[shark77]

I just provided at least one true F1 race car, and 3 other super cars (that a lot of folks consider race cars) that don't fit that definition.

The McLaren F1 GT is not a "true F1 race car". Back in 1997 Formula 1 engines were 3 liter V10's that put out around 800hp @ 16000rpm, and up until two years ago these engines were putting out near a rumored 950hp at 18,000rpm. Since the 2006 season, they have been using a 2.4 liter V8 pushing around 750hp @ 20000rpm.

As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.

Torque is a measurment of force. Horsepower is simply the measurment of force related to the rate (RPM) that force is being applied.

Example:

Take 2 identical cars except for their engines...

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 4000rpm which is equal to 328ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 2000rpm which is equal to 190hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 12000rpm which is equal to 219ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 10000rpm which is equal to 476hp

If both cars are geared for and driven only between peak torque and peak horsepower. By the laws of physics, car B will out accellerate car A by quite a margin.

Why?

Because if you average the horsepower between peak torque and peak horsepower, you will find that Car A has a average horsepower over this power band of 220hp. This equates to 121,000ft/lbs per second of work being done.

Car B averages 488hp over this power band, which equates to 268,400ft/lbs per second of work being done.

In order for car A to be able to accellerate as quickly as car B, it would have to reduce it's weight down to ~1350lbs.

 

[Falconx84]

anyone remember anything from physics class that can verify? or comment on the validity of this comparison?

I've been out of school too long, lol

 

[Kosh]

When I think race car I think super gt or champ car, not production supercars. Production cars have to be made street legal with safety equipment and have added comfort amenities you won't find on the track. Weight, RPM and torque is what makes a race car powerful.

We should probably start a thread to discuss physics instead of thread jacking the hell out of this one. This is really interesting to me since I was a bit of a physics geek back in school.

 

[camrycev6]

The McLaren F1 GT is not a "true F1 race car". Back in 1997 Formula 1 engines were 3 liter V10's that put out around 800hp @ 16000rpm, and up until two years ago these engines were putting out near a rumored 950hp at 18,000rpm. Since the 2006 season, they have been using a 2.4 liter V8 pushing around 750hp @ 20000rpm.

As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.

Torque is a measurment of force. Horsepower is simply the measurment of force related to the rate (RPM) that force is being applied.

Example:

Take 2 identical cars except for their engines...

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 4000rpm which is equal to 328ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 2000rpm which is equal to 190hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 12000rpm which is equal to 219ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 10000rpm which is equal to 476hp

If both cars are geared for and driven only between peak torque and peak horsepower. By the laws of physics, car B will out accellerate car A by quite a margin.

Why?

Because if you average the horsepower between peak torque and peak horsepower, you will find that Car A has a average horsepower over this power band of 220hp. This equates to 121,000ft/lbs per second of work being done.

Car B averages 488hp over this power band, which equates to 268,400ft/lbs per second of work being done.

In order for car A to be able to accellerate as quickly as car B, it would have to reduce it's weight down to ~1350lbs.

I think my link I provided in my other post covers this really well.

Check your physics, torque is not a unit of force by the way, it is a unit of energy. (But it is non-scalar.)

Your example is correct, and I understood the concept prior to this post. I think your engine examples are just a little unfairly unrealistic. How many car engines make 500 HP / 250 Tq that can be driven at 10,000 - 12,000 RPMs? If such an engine did exist, I would assume engine B would CRUSH car A. Let me see, B engine reaches max HP at 3 times the RPMs of engine A, and max torque at 5 times the RPMs. That B engine is amazing compared to A. You also have a larger power curve, so you can be at a much higher level of power for a much longer time...so yeah, I can see why B could do a heck of a lot more work.

So we haven't proven anything other than gearing and the overall powerband are more important. All I have to do is adjust the RPMs, and I can flip the results around....without changing the HP or Tq and I won't use numbers quite as high or as far off as you did.

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 8000rpm which is equal to 164ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 5000rpm which is equal to 476hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 6000rpm which is equal to 437ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 3000rpm which is equal to 142hp

Car B would have the initial advantage, but because of his relatively small power band when compared to car A, A would win. (Given enough time.)

 

[Babyface13]

nuff' said lol VVV

 

[User Name]

What was this thread about again?

 

[shark77]

Check your physics, torque is not a unit of force by the way, it is a unit of energy. (But it is non-scalar.)

Let me clarify... I meant it is not a unit of power. Torque is a rotational force when applied over a set amount of time will give you a unit of power.

I think your engine examples are just a little unfairly unrealistic. How many car engines make 500 HP / 250 Tq that can be driven at 10,000 - 12,000 RPMs?

The only way you are making ~500hp at 10,000-12,000 rpm, is if you are putting out ~250ft/lbs of torque.

Look at a Formula 1 engine. If the engine is making 750hp at 20,000 rpm, we know that only 197ft/lbs is being applied.

If such an engine did exist, I would assume engine B would CRUSH car A. Let me see, B engine reaches max HP at 3 times the RPMs of engine A, and max torque at 5 times the RPMs. That B engine is amazing compared to A. You also have a larger power curve, so you can be at a much higher level of power for a much longer time...so yeah, I can see why B could do a heck of a lot more work.

Indeed Car B is much faster, that was my point. As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.

So we haven't proven anything other than gearing and the overall powerband are more important.

The powerband I showed for both cars was 2000rpm each. Car A was from 2000-4000 and Car B was from 10,000-12,000.

All I have to do is adjust the RPMs, and I can flip the results around....without changing the HP or Tq and I won't use numbers quite as high or as far off as you did.

If you adjust the RPM's around, you have to change either horsepower, torque, or both for it to mathmatcially make sense.

Car A: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 250hp @ 8000rpm which is equal to 164ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 500ft/lbs @ 5000rpm which is equal to 476hp

Car B: weighs 3000lbs
Peak Hp = 500hp @ 6000rpm which is equal to 437ft/lbs
Peak Tq = 250ft/lbs @ 3000rpm which is equal to 142hp

Car B would have the initial advantage, but because of his relatively small power band when compared to car A, A would win. (Given enough time.)

Geared properly they would be pretty evenly matched. With a slight edge going to car B. The big difference here is that you are now making almost 500hp with car A.

You should re-label car A's peak horsepower to be 476hp.

 

[Donas64]

I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.

(mswerd)

Holy crap! A forum member with common sense! I salute you sir!

 

[Betelgeuse]

Let me clarify... I meant it is not a unit of power. Torque is a rotational force when applied over a set amount of time will give you a unit of power.



The only way you are making ~500hp at 10,000-12,000 rpm, is if you are putting out ~250ft/lbs of torque.

Look at a Formula 1 engine. If the engine is making 750hp at 20,000 rpm, we know that only 197ft/lbs is being applied.



Indeed Car B is much faster, that was my point. As far as acceleration goes, it all comes down to horsepower and weight.



The powerband I showed for both cars was 2000rpm each. Car A was from 2000-4000 and Car B was from 10,000-12,000.



If you adjust the RPM's around, you have to change either horsepower, torque, or both for it to mathmatcially make sense.



Geared properly they would be pretty evenly matched. With a slight edge going to car B. The big difference here is that you are now making almost 500hp with car A.

You should re-label car A's peak horsepower to be 476hp.

Without comparing actual torque curves it's pretty hard to say for sure which car would be faster (assuming the gearing and weight are the same). But you guys both make excellent points, however the fact remains, Hondas (with the exception of their v6s)generally make little torque and hp at low rpms in relation to their weight. The SI is a good example. Down low there's hardly any power:

[/URL][/IMG]

Now it does have between 120 - 134 ft/lbs of tq but at 5000 rpms it's only putting out about 110 hp! (tq dips to about 118 there) For a 2900 lb car (four door sedan), that's not a lot of power. And the small band it has to play with from 6-8k isn't that impressive as well. Yeah on the highway it might be quick but the overall power to weight is not enough for it to be really quick. The only way to increase the hp at lower to mid rpms is to raise the tq. The only way to do it in upper rpms is either to move the redline up(unlikely)or increase the tq. HP matters but it's nothing without torque.

 

[Betelgeuse]

I think the beatdown needs to stop. I haven't read everyone of his posts but, the ones I have read didn't seem offensive. There's definitely an anti-honda 'thing' on this board. I guess it has more to do with what a lot of hondas become...and less to do with what they originate as from the factory.

All I know is, this place would be pretty dull if we all agreed on the same thing. I personally like when someone from another forum comes over to voice his opinion. If all we (or any forum for that matter) do is beat that person down... the chances of this continuing are slim. (unless they're a glutton for punishment.)

Anyway, for those of you who still feel the need to trash this guy... try re-reading some of his posts (on this thread at least) with a more open mind. He's praised the MS3 and voiced his opinion on why he feels a lot of people like the Si. Unless I missed a memo... there's nothing wrong with that.

He started this thread a while ago that had to be closed:

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123680117

Believe me, he just likes to stir things up and his respect for Mazda and the ms3 is questionable. His rant in this thread was uncalled for and had little to do with the topic. Besides I doubt anyone was really putting down the Caliber based on its performance, it was more its looks. Even on the SRT forums they constantly beat on it for its looks. The car will be quick and a good rival no doubt.